Standing Committee E

Clause 61

Curriculum requirements for the fourth key stage

Edward Leigh: I beg to move amendment No. 349, in clause 61, page 42, leave out line 29.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 439, in clause 61, page 43, leave out lines 15 to 24.

Edward Leigh: We now come to an important clause, which spells out at some length—it is significant that it does so—what the national curriculum in schools in England and Wales should contain.
When Keith Joseph was Secretary of State for Education, he opposed the introduction of a national curriculum, and it was only when his successor came into office that one was adopted. Later, speaking in the House of Lords, he reluctantly accepted that a national curriculum might be useful in certain core subjects, such as maths and English, which would be taught anyway. However, he worried that such a curriculum would become a maximum and exclude some useful subjects. I have tabled an amendment about certain academic subjects, which we shall reach later. Those who originally introduced the national curriculum, however, could not have imagined that we would get into such detail or that it would be necessary to impose such obligations on schools.
It is well known that I am opposed to the imposition of the national curriculum, which has resulted in more and more initiative, authority and power being taken from schools. Schools are perfectly capable of providing subjects in a professional and proper way, and parents ultimately have the choice of whether to send their children to particular schools. However, we are not debating those issues in any detail, although the groups of amendments before us could constitute a clause stand part debate.
As I said, the clause spells out what the national curriculum means for schools. It sets out which subjects it will be compulsory for all pupils to take and, therefore, for all schools to provide. Those are the so-called foundation subjects, which we will have an opportunity to discuss. The clause also sets out which subjects pupils are entitled to expect to be provided and from which they may choose—the so-called entitlement subjects. Obviously, there is a large number of amendments on all those issues, but I shall start with amendment No. 349, which is in my name.
The clause says that the national curriculum should include and therefore impose “work-related learning”. The amendment is an attempt to force the Government to tell us what that phrase means, although I am, unfortunately, pretty confident that the amendment will not be accepted. Under the clause, the national curriculum requires all pupils of 14 to 16 years of age in state schools to study all the foundation subjects, and if we are to have a national curriculum, there need be no controversy about that. Those subjects include maths, English and science—there is little debate about those—as well as IT, physical education and citizenship, although the latter is perhaps pushing the boundaries, and we can no doubt tease out from the Under-Secretary what it means. There is a list of entitlement subjects, from which pupils can chose, and work-related learning, which is what the amendment is about.
I will stand corrected if I am wrong, and one purpose of the amendment is to find this out, but as I understand it, work-related learning will not be optional, but compulsory for all 14 to 16-year-old pupils once the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. That is nonsensical. I do not quite know what work-related learning means, although I can guess, but I do not know why such a non-academic subject should be compulsory for schools. I am not saying that it should not be an option, or that it would not be the right the course of action for many pupils for some or even all of the time, but making it compulsory seems to be a step too far.

Anne Snelgrove: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that work-related learning was introduced to the education system in this country in the 1980s by Sir Keith Joseph, when he modelled the technical and vocational education initiative on the organisation of rehabilitation and training in France and Germany? He was very taken with that and thought that it would be good thing for UK schools. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would agree with him.

Edward Leigh: I always agree with Sir Keith Joseph on everything, because he is one of my heroes, not least because he wrote a pamphlet that said that the market was not enough. He was not the caricature of a libertarian that he is made out to be. He was a caring and able man who cared deeply about education. Without being privy to all the debates that took place at that time, I am sure that he was convinced that practical, work-related learning—perhaps on the German model, which I believe he much admired—was a suitable course for many pupils. I imagine that he would have felt that to force all pupils into an academic straitjacket was not the right course of action.
I cannot believe for a moment, however, that if Sir Keith were here with us—perhaps his spirit is still hovering in the room—he would impose compulsory work-related learning on all pupils, particularly highly academic children. Even the modestly academic child will surely need all available school time to cover the hard subjects as much as possible. Those are the difficult subjects that he has to go through the academic grind of getting to grips with—English, maths, sciences, languages and so on.
Such a pupil will have plenty of opportunities later to get into the world of work; but school is the one opportunity that he will have at a relatively young age to spend as much school time as possible on those subjects. I am not suggesting compulsion, but I do not want the opposite to happen, not least because they are difficult and much harder to get to grips with later, but because those subjects—geography, history and other traditional subjects—give pupils a sense of time and place, some knowledge of their history and culture. We all know that those subjects are important and valuable, which is presumably why they are core subjects.
The pupil will presumably go on to A-levels and, I hope, to university. He might do some work-related experience in the lower sixth, which is fair enough by me—it is an increasing trend, although I am a bit dubious about it. I pester my friends to take on my children to do work-related experience and they pester me for theirs to follow me. The trouble with having people on work-related experience is that one is supposed to be working all the time in front of them, not staring out of the window or sitting in the Tea Room. That sort of thing can be a bit of bind, and I do not know what my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) would do, as he spends most of his time in the Tea Room. What would somebody on work-related experience gain from following him? Perhaps serving behind the counter in the Tea Room would be the most useful thing to do.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend knows that I certainly do not limit my taking of tea to the Commons Tea Room. I take tea in many places. I spend a great deal of time in this Committee and the rest of my time guiding him on the path of righteousness.

Edward Leigh: I have made my point. I have no argument with work-related experience as a useful thing. It is an increasingly fashionable way of proceeding and I imagine that I shall take on someone. I was stopped in my village last week by a constituent and told, “Please take on somebody to help you out”. Of course they can come—they will follow me around after they have taken their AS-levels. I can understand that: they have taken their AS-levels and they want to have a week relaxing in the House of Commons. Fair enough, I shall take them on. However, I am not quite sure what it means to make work-related experience compulsory for those preparing for their GCSEs and AS-levels or for even younger children.
I am not opposed to work-related teaching, which is very valuable to people who perhaps are not of an academic bent and who want to go into a useful trade as a plumber or a bricklayer; the country is short of people with those skills. However, I am against imposing it on all academic children. Work-related experience—whatever that means—or work-related learning, to use the language of the Bill, should be an option; it should not be compulsory for every child.

John Hayes: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a word about my hon. Friend’s amendment and about the subject generally. I have a passion for vocational education, which the Ministers and other members of the Committee share, and I believe that work experience for young people can play a vital part in their education.
Contrary to my hon. Friend’s scathing and unreasonable attack on me, I have done many things in my time in Parliament, including shepherding—if that is the right word—a number of young people on work experience, one of whom is starting with me next week, spending two weeks working in my constituency office and in my office in Westminster. I invite my hon. Friend to share that kind of experience, which is both valuable for the young person concerned and good for us, too. We learn from it ourselves.
The experience of work can play an important part in children’s education. I am supported in that view not just by members of the Committee—as though that were not enough—but by others. A survey for Edge—the campaign for practical learning—found that approximately two-thirds of employers believe that schools do not equip young people with vital practical skills; four out of five employers believe that schools should place more emphasis on teaching the literacy, numeracy and practical skills that young people will need for work; and when recruiting a 16 or 17-year-old, GCSE grades are seen as important by employers, but so are practical learning achievements and experience such as job-based training and work placements.
Employers are saying clearly that it is important that people are equipped with those core skills, which are vital for their role in employment and in wider society. Some experience of the workplace is also useful in providing young people with the rounded education that we all seek for them. The amendment would inhibit that valuable process and I would not want to be party to that.
We must broaden our view of education. We live in a world where education is seen principally as a literary matter, but in fact it is also about the work that people do with their hands and other, “soft” skills such as their ability to relate to others. In short, it is about making the best of their many talents, which may extend beyond the literary. I urge my hon. Friend not to close the door on that broader view of education which can provide important chances for many young people who might not thrive in a narrower, academic environment.
I fundamentally disagree with my hon. Friend on the matter. It is unusual for us to have a fundamental disagreement as we are from the same mould politically, but there are differences of nuance, which are perhaps explained by my greater sensitivity to the needs of those who are most vulnerable.
My hon. Friend is a noble figure, a great parliamentarian and a learned man who has made a great contribution to the House and to this Committee. I invite him to draw on his Christian spirit and ask himself how the people who benefit from the educational opportunities that I briefly described would feel about his amendment. I suspect that they would feel as I do.

Edward Leigh: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Were I arguing that work-related experience had no place in schools, I would accept his points. However, all that I am saying is that it should not be compulsory for all pupils. Why should it not be an option for every pupil?

John Hayes: The Under-Secretary will, no doubt, enlighten us as to the Government’s position on that. This is not my Bill. I have some sympathy with certain aspects of it, as I have made clear throughout the Committee, but it is certainly not for me to defend it; that is the Under-Secretary’s job and I should not want to second-guess what he might say. In my judgment, we have a long way to go before we reach saturation point in respect of those who might benefit from the kind of experience that I have described.
We know from employer surveys, from our own study of schools, and from Ofsted and others that many young people do not get opportunities for practical, on-the-job training and work experience. I am not worried that there is too much of it; if anything, I am worried that there is too little. Were we to be subsumed by a sea of work experience—to feel that children’s education was being interrupted by unnecessary experiences of that kind—my hon. Friend might have a point. However, I think that we are at the beginning of a journey in that respect and that we need to accelerate our progress on that journey rather than stalling it as my hon. Friend would seek to do. I have no doubt that he and I will agree on other amendments.
I believe that we are also considering amendment No. 439, to which my hon. Friend did not speak with any great enthusiasm. That relates to the same subject, so I cannot add anything useful and I understand why my hon. Friend did not speak at length. We wait to hear what the Under-Secretary says, but we are not inclined to grasp with relish my hon. Friend’s suggestions, although I know that he makes them in the spirit that has imbued this Committee—one of seeking to tease out, to probe and to discover precisely what the Government’s intentions are.

Phil Hope: As we begin to consider the important part of the Bill, which concerns the future of the curriculum, let me quote the wise words of Diogenes Laertius. I know that Committee members have been wondering what he had to say, and it was:
“The foundation of every state is the education of its youth.”
We would all agree about that. The introduction of the new diplomas that we will debate later is an opportunity for us to play our part in transforming secondary education in this country.
I have to say that I do not agree with the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). He was described in an earlier sitting as an outrider, but I notice from a publication that has recently been released, “Set the schools free”, that some 37 members of his party, including his hon. Friend on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, support his view that
“Conservatism is about trickling down the privileges of the few to the many.”
That is not the view of hon. Members on this side of the Committee. Our view is that every young person should have opportunities to improve his education and to achieve his potential, and that is what the Bill is all about.
Work-related learning was introduced into the key stage 4 national curriculum in 2004 as part of the Government’s far-reaching agenda for change in the curriculum for students aged 14 to 19. Work-related learning is planned activity that uses the context of work to develop knowledge, skills and understanding that are useful in work. It can take place across the curriculum, with different subjects and courses providing pupils with the opportunities and contexts in which to develop the work-related skills and knowledge.
The statutory requirement describes it in three parts. One is learning through work, about which the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings was so eloquent. It provides opportunities for students to learn from direct experience of work, but it also includes learning about work by providing opportunities for students to develop knowledge and understanding of work and enterprise. It also includes learning for work by developing skills for enterprise and for employability, with young people taking part in enterprise projects and so on. There is a diversity of provision in schools under the umbrella of work-related learning, which is now a key part of the national curriculum.
It is my view and the Government’s view that all young people need work-related learning. It is an essential part of preparing for an adult life, as we want all young people to contribute to the country’s economic well-being. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings cited Edge; he and I have had much contact with that organisation, which supports our initiatives. Many employers have told me, as Minister for skills, of the priority that they put on young people leaving full-time education with work-related skills, so that they can enter the world of work with confidence and with the wide range of employable skills that employers are keen to have.
By making it statutory, we will ensure the clarity, coherence and quality of work-related provision. Given the support for this on both sides of the House, and given the support of the many bodies who wish to see the national curriculum provide young people with such experiences and opportunities, I hope that the hon. Member for Gainsborough will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Edward Leigh: I am faced with the eloquence not only of my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings but of the Under-Secretary—and even of Diogenes, which I suspect was not learned on work-related experience. I believe that we have had a useful debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Edward Leigh: I beg to move amendment No. 408, in clause 61, page 43, line 2, at end insert
‘and
(d) religious education, including a daily act of worship as specified in the Education Reform Act 1988.'.
I hope that the Committee will forgive me for moving another amendment so soon, but it is an important subject and I would like a short debate to find out what is going on in our schools. The amendment would add religious education and an act of worship to the foundation subjects in the national curriculum—that is, they would become compulsory.
It is interesting to note that until the national curriculum was devised in the 1980s, the only subject that had been compulsory in all maintained schools since 1944 was religious education, along with an act of worship. That was the only compulsory subject between 1944 and the 1980s, but that requirement has never been repealed. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong and give me an insight into what is going on in schools, but I believe that RE is still a compulsory subject in all schools, as is an act of worship.
Clause 61 is long and prescriptive, and it will doubtless be taken as a new bible of what should be taught in state schools. One would have thought that religious education was a fairly important aspect in growing up. We talked earlier about the broader cultural value of work-related experience; I should have thought that some sort of introduction to religious education, taught in a sensitive way, was a valuable part of our education system. However, there is not one mention of it in clause 61. Why not?
I believe that religious education should be inserted into clause 61 as a foundation subject, otherwise pupils—and, most importantly, schools—might consider that it was no longer a required subject. They may know that it was required in 1944, but they are not parliamentary lawyers or politicians and may not know that the provision has not been repealed. They may look at the guidance given in the latest Act of Parliament, not see the subject and therefore think that it is not required. We all know the reality. I wonder whether the Minister has figures to show what is happening in our 20,000 schools to religious education and a daily act of worship. We know that the provision is widely ignored, particularly the daily act of worship, but I stand to be corrected.
Omitting the subject from the clause, as the Government have done, would suggest—the Minister will correct me if this is an unfair statement—that they are surreptitiously dropping RE from the curriculum.
Phil Hopeindicated dissent.

Edward Leigh: The Under-Secretary shakes his head. Even the shaking of a ministerial head is to be welcomed, although he is now applying the brakes—he will have an opportunity to speak later.
In my experience, the old-fashioned school assembly was an invaluable way to get people together and have a break from the academic grind. It has come increasingly out of fashion, but I would hope that once we have had this short debate, the Under-Secretary will say that, far from the Government doing anything surreptitiously to ease out that subject, they think that it is valuable and that the provisions in the Education Act 1944 still stand.

John Hayes: Having disagreed with my hon. Friend about his previous amendment, I have to say that I am sympathetic to the views that he has expressed on the subject now before us. I am sympathetic because I share his view that the clear commitment to religious education made in the 1944 Act, supported by the Education Reform Act 1988, needs to be reaffirmed here.
We live in an age in which the spiritual is neglected and the material worshipped. Surely it is inconceivable that we should devise an education system that places insufficient emphasis on the spiritual. For that reason, I have sympathy with my hon. Friend. Sections 26 to 28 of the 1944 Act, which I have details of here, make it clear that religious education should be included in the basic curriculum. Indeed, his amendment would do much the same and add religious education to subjects at the core of a school’s business.
The 1988 Act, which I also have details of, reinforced that position and said once again that religious education should be included in that fundamental list of subjects that all children are expected to study. I guess that the architects of both those important pieces of legislation were inspired by Moses’ words in Deuteronomy with which he commanded men, women and children to come together to hear the word of the Lord. No doubt my hon. Friend was reading that just before he came into Committee to move his amendment.
To move from the biblical to the modern, there is good evidence to suggest that religious education can be used positively in the pursuit of tolerance and non-discrimination. I call upon no less a body than the International Association for Religious Freedom to support that assertion. In a paper that I have before me, it makes it clear that it believes that religious education can indeed do that. The international association, founded in 1900 and drawing membership from adherents to a wide range of world religions, is committed to upholding religious freedom as a fundamental human right.
In November 2001, on the 20th anniversary of the UN declaration on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief, that issue was given prominence. A paper entitled, “The Role of Religious Education in the Pursuit of Tolerance and Non-Discrimination” was considered carefully. Perhaps it is worth quoting from that study:
“Religious education should be conceived as a tool to transmit knowledge and values pertaining to all religious trends, in an inclusive way, so that individuals realize their being part of the same community and learn to create their own identity in harmony with identities different from their own. As such, religious education radically differs from...theology, defined as the formal study of the nature of God”.
Indeed, the Government, in a joint statement on the importance of religious education issued in February by the Department and faith communities, which the Minister, in the time that he has had to study these matters, will no doubt have seen, emphasise that religious education can play a vital role. According to the joint statement, it
“offers opportunities for personal reflection and spiritual development”.
The statement continues to say that it
“provokes challenging questions about the ultimate meaning and purpose of life, beliefs about God, the self, the nature of reality, issues of right and wrong and what it means to be human...enhances pupils’ awareness of religions and beliefs, teachings, practices and forms of expression, as well as of the influence of religion on individuals, families, communities and cultures...encourages pupils to learn from different religions, beliefs, values and traditions, while exploring their own beliefs and questions of meaning”
and
“challenges pupils to reflect on, consider, analyse, interpret and evaluate issues of truth, belief, faith and ethics and to communicate their response.”
That list continues, but you can understand, Mr. Cook, that the spirit of the joint statement is that religious education is an important vehicle for education in the broader way that I mentioned when I argued for children to have experience beyond the boundaries of the school. Religious education seems to me to be useful in those ways.

Annette Brooke: I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman, but is he suggesting that the Bill undermines the current arrangements with respect to the Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education, which I think are excellent?

John Hayes: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the Bill is consistent with current best practice. I suggest that our purpose is to ensure that what we do supports all those efforts that provide for good schools and education. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, I think, in his brief words in support of the amendment said that he thought it would make the Bill consistent with the 1944 and 1988 Acts and build on excellent arrangements of the kind that the hon. Lady mentioned.
As we live in an age where all the things that I have described need new emphasis—because we need to elevate our thinking about what makes an educated person; because we need once again to discover spirituality and its importance to human fulfilment—I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend’s amendment. However, I shall of course wait to hear the Under-Secretary respond in his usual elegant and eloquent way before we decide what we will do if my hon. Friend chooses to press his amendment to a vote.

Phil Hope: I shall not linger on an apparent contradiction between what the hon. Member for Gainsborough said in the introduction to amendment No. 349, about wanting to abolish the national curriculum, and his wanting by means of the current amendment to impose a topic on that curriculum.

Edward Leigh: If one is forced to sup with the devil, one should at least ensure that the soup is tasty.

Phil Hope: That is apposite, given the amendment before us. I hope to be able to reassure the hon. Gentleman.
Religious education and collective worship already have a secure place in the school curriculum. All maintained schools must provide religious education and collective worship. Religious education is part of the basic curriculum. Schools must teach it either according to locally agreed syllabuses or, in the case of voluntary aided schools with a religious character, according to the trust deed of the schools. I remind the hon. Gentleman that parents are allowed to withdraw their child from religious education and collective worship if they wish.
The Government have a clear commitment to religious education throughout the curriculum, whereas clause 61 refers only to key stage 4. As the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said, the 1998 Act affirms that. I shall not go through the draft joint statement. It shows the kind of education that we expect young people to receive through religious education and has been agreed with the faith communities.

Edward Leigh: We know that the subject is compulsory because we have had the benefit of listening to my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who read out the relevant passages in the 1944 and 1988 Acts. Is there religious education in every school? Can the Minister give that commitment? Is there some sort of collective act of worship? I doubt whether he can give that commitment.

Phil Hope: If religious education is not being taught in a school through the key stages, it is not acting lawfully. That subject is a core part of the basic curriculum and has to be taught. The same is true of collective acts of worship. Responsibility for ensuring that collective acts of worship take place rests with head teachers and school governors. We expect all schools to comply with the law.

John Hayes: I am extremely impressed with the Under-Secretary’s comments. Will he consider any representations from my hon. Friend if he is concerned that the law is not being followed properly in some cases?

Phil Hope: As a Minister in a Government who are always open to listening to the representations and views of Members on both sides of the House, I will happily take representations regarding concerns about the delivery of any aspect of the national curriculum.
Making religious education and collective worship a core subject at key stage 4, as the amendment would do, would not be useful or helpful at this point. We would need to develop national programmes of study and attainment targets, which would allow less scope for faith communities to contribute to the development of religious education provision in schools and for teaching in those schools to reflect local circumstances and traditions.
The Government have developed a non-statutory framework for religious education to provide local authorities, standing advisory councils for religious education—SACREs, as they are known—teachers, parents and the wider community with a clear, shared understanding of the knowledge and skills that young people should gain at school in religious education. The framework allows schools to meet the individual learning needs of pupils and to develop a distinctive character and ethos for their religious education teaching which is rooted in their local communities. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would fully support that.
I emphasise the importance of allowing parents to withdraw their children from RE and the act of collective worship. They would not be able to opt out if the subject was in the national curriculum, so the amendment would cause difficulties in that regard. On the basis of those arguments and the assurances that I have given, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Edward Leigh: As always, the Under-Secretary has done his best to reassure me. In a sense, I am pleased that he said on the record, in Committee, that he expects every school to have not only religious education but a collective act of worship, which we know does not happen in all schools. At least we got that on the record, so anyone who follows these debates will be aware of it.
If an amendment such as mine were accepted, I am sure that we could have some sort of opt-out procedure, but we could deal with that on Report. I agree that parents should be allowed to opt out of their children receiving religious education, but that would be perfectly possible. The amendment would build on existing legislation and would not interfere with that.
I do not think that the Minister was being entirely honest, if I may say so, when he suggested that if the legislation were restated in the way in which it was stated in 1944 and 1988, it would somehow be unduly prescriptive and would mean telling Catholic, Anglican or Muslim schools how to teach education. We all know that if this were a core subject it would be perfectly possible, within the Department’s guidance, to give schools the freedom to teach education in the way in which they want. The guidance could be framed in such a way. I do not think that anybody is seriously suggesting that we can lay down from the centre, any more now than we have in the past 60 years, what the exact nature of religious education should be.
I withdraw the vicious attack I made earlier on my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings. He was very eloquent when he spoke about the value of religious education. We live in an increasingly consumerist, materialist age, and so there is an enormous value in it. When every other subject is dealt with in such detail, mentioned, pushed forward and insisted upon, I do not see why such an important part of our cultural heritage should be left out of the Bill. I therefore want to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 16.

Question accordingly negatived.

James Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 518, in clause 61, page 43, line 2, at end insert
‘and
(d) a modern foreign language.'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 238B, in clause 61, page 43, line 7, at end insert
‘and
(d) modern foreign languages, comprising any modern foreign language specified in an order made by the Secretary of State or, if the order so specifies, any modern foreign language.'.
No. 257, in clause 61, page 43, line 7, at end insert—
‘(4A) In relation to modern foreign languages the programme of study specified by the National Curriculum shall, in addition to any other topics that may be included, contain the following—
(a) formal grammar and morphology;
(b) translation from English into the foreign language.'.
No. 504, in clause 61, page 43, line 33, at end insert—
‘(1A) Where a course of study within an entitlement area specified by the Secretary of State under section 85A(1)(b) is to be introduced, proper provision must be made for the teaching of modern foreign languages.'.
No. 240, in clause 61, page 43, line 46, after ‘State', insert
‘, which shall include standard Mandarin, modern standard Arabic and Castilian Spanish,'.

James Clappison: The purpose of the amendment is to add modern foreign languages to the list of foundation subjects in clause 61. At present, they are part of the entitlement subjects in proposed new section 85A. I hope that I will not get into trouble with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough for being too prescriptive. I draw to his attention the fact that I am shifting the modern foreign languages from one part of the group to another. There is an important point behind this and I would like to explore the position of modern foreign languages in our schools, particularly our secondary schools.
In 2003, modern foreign languages were removed from the foundation part of the curriculum and put into the entitlement area. While it is a little bit early to explore the consequences of that change, there are some alarming developments in the study of modern foreign languages in our schools. That is often debated. Some argue that it is not so important for people in this country to learn a modern foreign language because English is so widely spoken in the world. I happen to believe that it is important and something that our children should do to enrich themselves culturally. It is perhaps an indication of the wider issues relating to academic rigour and standards in our schools. Taking GCSE entries as a measurement of how modern foreign languages are faring in our schools—I say this with a word of caution because, as I know to my personal cost, entering a GCSE is no measure of any achievement at the end of the process—the number of children learning a language at key stage 4 is extremely worrying. The number of children entering for GCSEs in modern foreign languages has been in free-fall in the past five years.
Although there has been a modest increase in the number of entries for Spanish, the numbers have gone down significantly for French and German, and also for other languages. It is no exaggeration to say that the number of people entering examinations are in free-fall. In 2000, 321,000 children entered for GCSE French, which is by far and away the most popular language at that level. By 2004-05, the figure had gone down to 244,000, and the same applies to German. That is a worrying picture, and it is reflected in the number of children studying languages at A-level. Indeed, the numbers at A-level are perhaps even more striking and they have gone down for all languages, which is worrying.

John Hayes: My hon. Friend is making a characteristically measured and thoughtful contribution. Is he familiar with the work of the National Centre for Languages, which is a Government-funded organisation? It reveals that we are 28th out of 28 countries in Europe in terms of our language competence. I challenged the Under-Secretary on that when we last had Education questions on the Floor of the House. That problem must relate to the number of students studying languages.

James Clappison: Perhaps I should be more familiar with that body’s work, but I am not entirely surprised by the rather alarming conclusion that my hon. Friend has drawn to the Committee’s attention. I have been talking about GCSE entries, because they are relevant in this context, but I would hazard a guess that our linguistic competence at GCSE level is rather modest compared with other countries’ achievements at the same level. I suspect that that is true of their achievements not only in English, but in other languages, and it is common for children in France and Germany to master several other languages besides English.
The picture at A-level is also worrying, and although I do not have an explanation, I wonder whether it has something to do with the fact that modern languages are perceived as hard subjects. The same might be true of science A-levels, because there seems to be a disjunction between the number of children who do GCSE science and science A-level. Although that situation is equally worrying, I shall stick with modern foreign languages. I simply ask the Under-Secretary to recognise the problem that exists in schools, accept that examination entries are in free-fall, acknowledge the concern that exists and give some indication of what is being done to tackle the problem.
The Government have a strategy for introducing children to languages earlier at primary school. However, there seemed to be some contradiction between that approach and the downgrading of modern foreign languages later on, when they were taken from the foundation part of the syllabus and put in the entitlement part. I served on the Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation that dealt with the relevant legislation and I asked the Under-Secretary’s predecessor—he has just become the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and I congratulate him on that—whether more children would come through to learn modern foreign languages at GCSE level as a result of the changes. He told me:
“I confidently expect the strategy to be successful—more young people will come through key stage 3 and into GCSE wanting to learn languages and, as their grades go up, Opposition Members will denounce that as being a result of falling standards. I look forward to that debate in the years ahead.”—[Official Report, Second Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 10 November 2003, c. 15.]
It is not that many years ahead, but it is two years ahead, and although it is a little early to judge, the results are not entirely encouraging.

Annette Brooke: Does the hon. Gentleman share my deep concern that the primary programme has not been rolled out fast enough or broadly enough? That is one reason why we are not achieving our objectives. I hope that the Minister will address that point.

James Clappison: It is a fair comment. In my experience, such as it is, the primary programme seems to be rather patchy. I have also asked whether it makes sense to have such a primary programme and then downgrade modern foreign languages later on. Children will have some proficiency if they get to GCSE level, but if they have dropped languages even before that, their proficiency will be limited.
I await the Minister’s response and I hope that he will acknowledge the seriousness of the situation and accept that, on the basis of GCSE entries, the subjects are in free-fall.

Angela Smith: I applaud the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to modern foreign languages. Does he agree that the number of people taking up foreign languages could be expanded through vocational skills programmes as much as through GCSEs? Why restrict it to GCSEs?

James Clappison: I can see no evidence anywhere else of a great surge in the taking of examinations. I will be corrected if I am wrong, but requiring children to learn the subject in the curriculum to at least GCSE standard is an appropriate way of measuring whether they are learning languages to a sufficient standard.
I look forward to the Minister’s response, because modern foreign languages seem to be withering on the vine.

Nick Gibb: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend. He makes a compelling case for including a modern foreign language in the core subjects of the national curriculum. Amendment No. 238 would make it one of the foundation subjects of the curriculum, making it compulsory at the fourth key stage. It is important that pupils learn a modern foreign language, and this country’s failure to ensure that could have serious economic implications.
My hon. Friend explained well the serious fall in the numbers taking language GCSEs, and I will not repeat his arguments. The Government’s argument for removing the compulsion for secondary school students to study a modern foreign language beyond the age of 14 was that it is better to have students who want to study a language and are motivated to do so than to force children who are not motivated to pursue one until the age of 16. The same argument could be applied to every area of the curriculum, whether it is maths, English, science or citizenship. It is the wrong approach to take. We must take a view about which subjects our children ought to master by the age of 16 in the state-funded education system. Modern foreign languages are as important a subject to study until the age of 16 as maths, English and science.
The Barcelona European Council in 2002 recommended that at least two foreign languages be learnt from a very early age, yet the UK performs very poorly compared with other European countries. That is shown in a report made by the European Commission in 2005, which showed that most countries insist on a modern foreign language being taught until the age of 18 and, in most cases, begin teaching a language between the ages of eight and 10. It also showed that only the UK, Ireland and Italy failed to offer an entitlement to all pupils to study two modern foreign languages. England has the highest proportion of lower secondary pupils who do not study a foreign language—19.9 per cent.
A survey this February, also by the European Commission, found that two in three adults in Britain were unable to speak a language other than English, compared with 44 per cent. across the EU. The implications that that will have for our country were investigated in a report by the British Council, entitled “English Next”. It suggested that in the future, monoglot native English speakers will lose out to qualified multilingual young people from other countries in the global jobs market that has emerged. Such concerns were also noted in the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority’s annual report for 2004-05. It said:
“Much more worrying is the fact that large numbers of more average students are possibly reducing their future prospects of job mobility and choice by giving up language learning at the age of 14.”
Amendment No. 257 would require the programme of study for foreign languages to include the study of formal grammar and morphology—the system of forms in a language—and translation from English into the foreign language. Those are both skills that are necessary for further study in a foreign language. Formal grammar refers to the laws and rules by which the language is structured. Too little emphasis is given to that aspect of language study, which is having an impact on universities and later study. Although the national curriculum states that students
“should be taught the grammar of the target language and how to apply it”,
many universities find that students arrive unaware of basic grammatical concepts. That is seen not only in foreign languages but, I am afraid to say, English as well. As a result, many universities find themselves teaching remedial grammar lessons to their undergraduates. Given the important role that modern languages play in allowing young people to understand their own language, it is important that the explicit teaching of grammar should be made a requirement in the curriculum.
Amendment No. 504 also applies the study of foreign languages to vocational subjects, while amendment No. 240 would ensure that the languages prescribed under regulations included Mandarin Chinese, Arabic and Spanish. Mandarin is the most widely spoken language in the world, being spoken by more than 1 billion people—more than 13 per cent. of the world’s population, according to the CIA, if we can believe it. Arabic is spoken across the middle east and north Africa by 206 million people. Modern standard Arabic is the dialect of Arabic most commonly used for official purposes and in schools, and Spanish is the most widely spoken European language after English. In contrast, French, which is the most commonly taught language in English schools, is declining as an international lingua franca.
The teaching of Arabic, Mandarin and Spanish was one of the recommendations of David Graddol, the author of the British Council’s “English Next” report.

Meg Hillier: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that the Petchey academy, which is opening this September in Hackney, will be teaching Mandarin Chinese to Hackney children. If that can be done in Hackney, it can be done anywhere, so I have some support for his views on teaching modern languages.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful for that intervention. It is impressive that those subjects will be taught at that academy and I would love to visit—if the people there felt that that they could bear it.
“English Next” argues that the UK’s best defence against the problems associated with the spread of English as a global language is to learn other languages. Arabic, Mandarin and Spanish are examples of the languages that ought to be taught. With those few words, I await the Minister’s response.

Edward Leigh: I, too, wish to speak in favour of the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings made some wounding personal remarks about my ability to speak on the Bill. I freely admitted that I know nothing at all about education theory—I simply come here with my experience as a father. As my hon. Friend said, I have so many children that my experience ranges over the entire English educational system. Indeed, next year I shall have six children in six different educational establishments in this country, in five different parts of the country.
Foreign language education is extremely important. I sent all my children to the French lycÃ(c)e—indeed, I went there myself—which has been an extraordinarily valuable experience. All of them have remained at the lycÃ(c)e, where pupils get total immersion in a foreign language. Total immersion in a foreign language is quite common in other countries. I have visited a school in Finland that has total immersion in English. The equivalent would be unheard of here, but it works. It is extraordinary to visit schools in other parts of Europe and find extraordinary ability and an understanding of the need to learn foreign languages, particularly English. I have Dutch relations. It is impossible to find any Dutch person over the age of 15 who does not speak English fluently, albeit with a strong accent.
Dutch people start to learn English relatively late in their educational experience—not at age 4 or 5—but they become fluent very quickly. Because Holland is a small, commercial country, its people have to learn English. It is extraordinary—we can produce as many statistics as we like, but we all know the truth—how we have sunk to the bottom of the European league in learning foreign languages. It can be said from a business point of view that, because English is now the business language of the world, other languages are not necessary, but we know that that cannot be true. Once one has a grounding in one foreign language—French, Spanish or anything else—it is far easier to learn other languages, and so to be more confident abroad, to deal with foreigners, and to engage in business in an increasingly competitive world. Given that languages are so important, I cannot understand why we are falling so far behind. On that basis, I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to the amendment.

Phil Hope: Before addressing the specific points that hon. Members have made, I should like to explain to the Committee that the aim of clause 61 is to provide entitlements in sciences and to diplomas. Both of those are direct consequences of changes to the curriculum that are already in train. The diploma entitlement is to secure the provision of the new diplomas and the science entitlement is directly linked to changes to the compulsory elements of the key stage 4 science curriculum that will come into effect in September. The inclusion in the Bill of the science and diploma entitlements has been prompted by specific circumstances in science and vocational study. There have been no similar developments in respect of modern foreign languages that could be considered adequate to give rise to a need to change the national curriculum to make the subject compulsory for all pupils.
I appreciate that hon. Members who have spoken—and others outside this place with an interest in modern foreign languages—would like to see the subject’s profile raised, as, presumably, those who are enthusiastic about other subjects that we will debate later would like to see the profiles of those subjects raised. However, the national curriculum has been developed carefully over the years, and its current form represents a balance derived from extensive consultations with all subject communities.
There is a clear need for the new science diploma entitlement, because of the changes. However—although I shall respond to points made by hon. Members today— a strong case has not been made through extensive debate and consultation for altering the status of modern foreign languages in the national curriculum. As the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said, the key stage 4 national curriculum was last changed in 2004, and that was following an extensive consultation.
Prior to 2004, there had been a large number of compulsory subjects. There was general agreement that that left too little flexibility for other subjects and little time for other study, such as the work-related or vocational learning that we debated earlier. We also knew—this is the reason for the 2004 changes—that many pupils were simply bored. They saw little relevance in the mainly academic curriculum and, as a result, left learning at 16 with few or no qualifications. We have debated elsewhere in this House the importance of increasing the numbers who stay on in education after 16.

John Hayes: The Minister is right. We are in agreement about those principles. He will know that I broadly welcome the diplomas. Perhaps, therefore, he will explain how much account was taken of modern foreign languages in the design of those diplomas.

Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I am going to address it when I address later amendments.
In 2004, the national curriculum was changed to become more flexible and more responsive to students’ individual needs and, crucially, to motivate them to stay on in learning. As a result, subjects are now compulsory only if they provide an essential basis for progression or if they are essential for personal development. At that time, modern foreign languages were changed from being a compulsory subject to being an entitlement, so schools have to provide access to a foreign language course to all pupils who wish to continue their language studies. So the question of motivation—which the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) mentioned—is being addressed by the introduction of language learning at key stage 2. Our goal in introducing it at key stage 2 is to motivate more young people to continue studying languages rather than forcing them to do so at key stage 4. Our commitment is that all pupils should be given an opportunity to study a language at key stage 2.

Nick Gibb: The Minister makes a compelling point, except that only a small proportion of primary schools in the country today provide modern foreign language teaching in class in the day time. Would it not have been better to remove the compulsion at 14 once the primary school sector had reached critical mass in teaching a modern foreign language at key stage 2?

Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but our analysis of the number of young people who were feeling bored and demotivated and not achieving success in their courses, and who were therefore leaving education at 16, led us to make those changes to the national curriculum as a whole. Currently, 56 per cent. of all primary schools deliver language programmes at key stage 2, and it is our intention that they should all do so by 2010. I have visited—as I am sure we all have in our constituencies—primary schools that are taking innovative and exciting approaches to introducing a modern foreign language into the primary sector.
In addition, we are providing greater choice and flexibility to overcome the problems for young people so that they can follow programmes that meet their aspirations and match their abilities. We have a newly introduced national recognition scheme, the languages ladder, which hon. Members have not mentioned. That provides an alternative and more flexible accreditation route to traditional GCSEs.
I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Hertsmere: we have seen the figures and he is right to say that there has been a decline, although as he said there has been an increase in the number of students taking up Spanish. It is interesting that the pass rate has gone up as a result of more young people who are taking those languages being motivated to do so. There is probably a relationship between those two facts.

Nadine Dorries: I wonder whether the Minister could clarify further the issue of meeting children’s aspirations. I was just thinking about my children’s aspirations, which are to get out of the school gates as quickly as possible at 4 o’clock. I am not sure that courses designed to meet their aspirations would be appropriate to their future needs.

Phil Hope: The hon. Lady will forgive me for not commenting on the extent to which she can make her own children stay on at school. What I am saying is that the curriculum must provide opportunities for young people to which they can respond. The flexibility that is provided for teachers to find ways of working in the classroom—and, indeed, outside it, through our extended schools strategy—is a mechanism for capturing and engaging young people in the joy of learning in all subjects, including modern foreign languages. That is what we are endeavouring to do through the changes to the national curriculum.
The hon. Gentleman was right to raise his concerns. That is why the Department wrote to all secondary schools last January, reminding them of their statutory obligation to provide opportunities for those pupils who wish to study languages. At the same time we placed an expectation on those schools to set their own targets of between 50 to 90 per cent. of key stage 4 pupils studying a language that leads to a recognised qualification. I know that that is a challenging target for some schools to set, but I expect that it will become less of an issue in the future as more children enter secondary schools with language skills and an enthusiasm for language that they have acquired through primary education. That is why we have done things that way round.

James Clappison: I wonder whether the Minister could go slightly further on what he has helpfully told us and assure us that he will revisit the subject with schools when he gets the results from that letter.

Phil Hope: Of course we monitor schools, their participation rates and the extent to which they are setting and achieving the targets that we are encouraging them to meet. We shall of course monitor our progress, but I am confident that it will make a difference as young people, particularly at key stage 2, find and develop their enthusiasm and confidence in language.
I want to speak to the other two amendments. Programmes of study set out the required teaching for those subjects that are compulsory for all pupils at each key stage. They provide a definition of what the subject entails in terms of the statutory required teaching that all pupils should receive. As I said, modern foreign languages are no longer compulsory for all pupils at key stage 4, so there is no programme of study to which amendment No. 257 could be applied. Of course, they are an important area of learning: the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has published non-contributory guidelines for modern foreign languages at key stage 4.
The amendment raises the question whether it is appropriate for Parliament to prescribe in legislation the requirements for languages and the other non-compulsory subjects that must be taught to those pupils. I consider that the present situation, in which the statutory content is prescribed for the compulsory subjects but not for optional subjects, strikes the right balance.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton mentioned grammar, morphology and the ability to translate, which are intrinsic elements of the specifications of GCSEs in modern foreign languages. Although the GCSE specification does not specify explicitly the need to translate from English to the foreign language, the process is implicit. It is inconceivable that students would not go through a translation process from English into the foreign language before expressing themselves in speech or in writing. I hope the hon. Gentleman understands that what he is asking for is, first, not appropriate, because it is not a compulsory subject and, secondly, unnecessary, because the process is implicit in the way the subjects are taught.
Amendment No. 504 would include the teaching of modern foreign languages in the courses of study for all the diploma entitlement areas—a matter that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings raised in an intervention. The diplomas are being introduced to provide a curriculum choice for young people; they are valuable qualifications enabling young people to progress to further learning or employment. Key to the development of the new specialised diplomas is the involvement of employers in designing the content of those courses of study. Diploma development partnerships are being led by sector skills councils designed to help to do the job. I am pleased to be able to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that they will include modern foreign language provision in the course of study when it is appropriate to the line of learning in that diploma.
The National Centre for Languages, which the hon. Gentleman quoted earlier, is working directly with the diploma development partnerships to encourage the provision of modern foreign languages in the diplomas. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith) asked why not include languages in other areas, too. I am happy to inform hon. Members that all five of the phase-one diploma development partnerships have expressed an interest in including languages in their diplomas as part of additional learning. We can see real progress being made in the way my hon. Friend suggested.
On amendment No. 240, the modern foreign language entitlement currently covers the official working languages of the European Union. I hope that that does not prompt Opposition Members to get to their feet. I am always slightly nervous about saying “European Union” in the House as I know how it excites Opposition Members. The languages are Danish, Dutch, French, German, modern Greek, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Swedish and Spanish. Amendment No. 240 would add Mandarin and modern standard Arabic to the list; as I said, it already includes Spanish.
Schools are only required to provide one language course to those pupils who elect to take up the entitlement, and it is for schools to decide which language it is. We want to encourage more pupils to take languages, and to do that the entitlement has been framed in terms of the languages that will appeal to the most pupils.
I do not want to tread into difficult territory, but the European Union is of great importance to British life and business. European languages are by far the most popular in our schools and we want pupils to be entitled to learn them. The amendment would water that down as a school might choose to fulfil its entitlement obligations by providing only Mandarin or Arabic. I agree with hon. Members that they are important languages but they are probably not appealing to the majority of pupils. If the amendment were accepted, the entitlement would no longer provide such an attractive opportunity to most pupils and it would be less effective in helping to encourage more pupils to take languages.
I was very impressed by the description by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) of a language academy in her constituency. I expect we could all cite examples of such excellence.
We are promoting specialist language colleges. A number offer Arabic and Chinese programmes in addition to the working languages of the European Union. The Specialist Schools and Academies Trust co-ordinates a Chinese network, providing information for teachers on Chinese resources and methodology, and a virtual staffroom online networking facility; a similar network is planned for Arabic.
A number of activities are in place to promote the languages that the hon. Member for Hertsmere rightly identified as being important. For the reasons that I have given, however, we believe that it would be inappropriate to support the amendment, and I hope that he will feel able to withdraw it.

Nick Gibb: This has been an interesting and well argued debate. There is a clear correlation and a causal link between the dramatic fall in the numbers taking GCSEs in French and German and the decision to remove compulsion at key stage 4. The pass rate has risen slightly, but the same would happen if we removed compulsion from science and maths, and I believe that we would see a similar dramatic tumbling in the numbers taking those subjects. It is odd that a modern foreign language is no longer compulsory at the age of 16 but citizenship is. The suspicion is that removing compulsion from a subject that is generally regarded as hard is part of a general dumbing down in education that has been happening gradually over the past 20 or 30 years.
The Minister cited a figure of 56 per cent. of primary schools offering modern languages, but that includes after-school clubs. It does not mean that 56 per cent. of primary schools are providing French or German or any other modern foreign language in school time, as part of their curriculum. The proportion doing that is tiny. If that had been the Government’s policy, it would have been better to remove compulsion at the age of 14 once a significant number of primary schools had started providing lessons during class time and not in after-school clubs. 
On that basis, when the time comes I would like to press amendment No. 238B to a Division.

James Clappison: We have had the opportunity for a reasonable debate on an important subject. I moved amendment No. 518, but I shall not seek to divide the Committee on it, but I hope that I have impressed upon the Minister that we should take the matter seriously. My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton mentioned including modern foreign languages in the curriculum for the purposes of business, but they are also important to our cultural enrichment and to the way in which we see the peoples of other countries. We will doubtless return to the subject.
Sciences were mentioned during the debate. My hon. Friend the made some important points about rigour and standards. The falling number of children entering for GCSEs in languages and of children entering for the sciences at A-level during the past five years might tell us something wider about rigour and standards. The falling number of children entering for physics at A-level, as well as for other science subjects, is equally worrying, if not more so. We talk about aspirations, but the decline may have something to do with the fact that many teachers are not expert or qualified specialists in those subjects. Our education system is failing to motivate sufficient children to take up languages and sciences at the higher levels, and particularly at A-level.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Edward Leigh: I beg to move amendment No. 409, in clause 61, page 43, leave out lines 5 to 8 and insert—
‘(a) geography,
(b) history,
(c) physical education,
(d) art and design, and
(e) music,
each subject to be allotted at least one period per week.'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 355, in clause 61, page 43, line 5, leave out ‘information and communication technology' and insert ‘computer science'.
No. 238A, in clause 61, page 43, line 7, at end insert
‘and
(d) history.'.
No. 239, in clause 61, page 43, line 28, leave out from ‘in' to ‘entitlement' in line 29 and insert
‘one or more subjects within each'.
No. 84, in clause 61, page 43, line 29, leave out ‘four'.
No. 410, in clause 61, page 43, leave out line 36.
No. 411, in clause 61, page 43, leave out line 37.
No. 83, in clause 61, page 43, line 40, at end insert—
‘(aa) English literature (comprising only that subject),'.
No. 412, in clause 61, page 43, line 41, leave out ‘(comprising only that subject)' and insert—
‘(ii) information and communication technology,'.
No. 413, in clause 61, page 43, leave out lines 42 to 47.
No. 372, in clause 61, page 43, line 47, at end insert
‘, and
(e) classical Latin and Greek'.

Edward Leigh: The Minister may be tempted to make a debating point by asking why, if someone is opposed to the national curriculum, they would want to have subjects listed in it. Well, if one is walking down a busy road, particularly a new Labour road, it is wise to look in both directions at once.

Phil Hope: You could get run over.

Edward Leigh: Well, you could but if you do not look in both directions you certainly would.
There is a serious point to make. I want to force a debate on the value of traditional subjects such as geography, history and music. Amendment No. 409 would make geography, history, physical education, art and design and music compulsory, although as each subject would be allotted at least one period per week, I am not over-egging the pudding. I am simply saying that there is a great value to a country in a shared cultural identity and the education that promotes it in ensuring that some sort of geography, history, music, art and design is taught at least once a week. I believe that it is desirable that all pupils aged 14 to 16 study those subjects.
I may be criticised for leaving out IT as a compulsory subject although I have put it down in a later amendment as an optional subject. The Minister might say that IT is now essential in the modern world, and I fully accept that. The Prime Minister and I share a lack of skill in it, but it is essential for young people, although I challenge the Minister or any parent in this Committee to name a 14-year-old who is not adept at using computers. Obviously it is an essential skill, but I am not sure why it needs to be a compulsory subject when take-up is virtually universal, certainly compared with foreign languages or any other subject one could think of.
Given the pressure on timetabling, something has to give. If separate sciences and languages are to be studied, my list of subjects, though optional in clause 61, ought to be given a higher profile. I offer that list to create a debate in Committee. I cannot believe that this is a controversial statement, but I believe that most pupils ought to study for at least one period a week, geography, history, physical education, art and design and music. That is what amendment No. 409 would achieve.
Amendments Nos. 410 and 411 would remove art and design and music from the optional subjects. I emphasise that far from wanting to remove those subjects from the national curriculum, I want all pupils to have to study them. Without amendment No. 409, amendments Nos. 410 and 411 would fall. Amendment No. 412 adds IT to the optional subjects. That amendment, too, is consequential on amendment No. 409. I am sure that I will be criticised for shifting IT from compulsory to optional subjects but I think that it is a worthwhile point to make in the debate. Amendment No. 413 is also consequential on amendment No. 409. It shifts geography, history and so on from optional to compulsory subjects. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that these traditional core subjects will still be taught in all schools.

Nick Gibb: Many of the amendments in this group go to the heart of the debate on the purpose of education and reflect something of the debate that has taken place in the education world, but that has not had public involvement. For instance, to what extent is education meant to prepare people for the world of work? Is it about teaching and passing on knowledge? Or is it about teaching them how to learn, in which case the actual knowledge that they acquire while at school is irrelevant and can be kept to a minimum?
My view is that people learn how to learn by actually learning. The greater the quantity of knowledge and concepts that children are able to acquire at school, the better able they are, and the greater their appetite, to acquire new knowledge in later life. All sections of society need to have had as full an education as possible. In this global information age, an increasing proportion of the jobs of the future will have an intellectual content. Education enables people to get the most out of life, whatever their background or IQ. The better educated a person, the more they can get out of life and the more enjoyable it becomes. Robert M. Hutchins was the chancellor of the university of Chicago in the 1950s and was chairman of the board of editors of the “Encyclopaedia Britannica” in its heyday. He also wrote the introduction to the “Great Books of the Western World”. He said:
“The aim of liberal education is human excellence, both private and public...Its object is the excellence of man as man and man as a citizen. It regards man as an end, not as a means; and it regards the ends of life, and not the means to it.”
Amendment No. 238A would therefore include history as one of the foundation subjects at key stage 4 along with information and communication technology, physical education and citizenship. Foundation subjects are additional to the core subjects of maths, science and English. In our original amendment No. 238, which has been split between this group and the previous one, we included a modern foreign language as a foundation subject.
It is important that young people understand the history of their country and the civilisation of which it is a part. It is important also that we understand the seminal moments in the history of other countries, particularly those countries that impact on our own, such as the United States, Europe and the middle east. Currently, too few children can remember or have even been taught key dates, facts or historical figures that are fundamental to the development of this country. Robert M. Hutchins also wrote:
“The tradition of the West is embodied in the Great Conversation that began in the dawn of history and that continues to the present day.”
Amendment No. 355 replaces the phrase, “information and communication technology”, with the more modern phrase, “computer science”. It was inspired by a report of the 2020 Science group established by Microsoft Research Cambridge. The report examines the likely impact of computing and computer science on science towards 2020. It found that science is undergoing a profound change. Whereas computers were previously used to support scientists in their research, the concepts, tools and theorems of computer science are now increasingly integrated into science itself, especially in biology and chemistry. Indeed, the report suggests that,
“computer science is poised to become as fundamental to biology as mathematics has become to physics”.
That has important implications for the education of future scientists. The report continues:
“Scientists will need to be completely computationally and mathematically literate, and by 2020 it will simply not be possible to do science without such literacy. This therefore has important implications for education right now. The output of computer scientists today barely meets the needs of the public and industrial computing sectors, let alone those required for future science sectors.”
The report recommends that education policy makers—us—urgently reconsider what needs to be done to produce the kinds of scientists that will be needed in the next decade. It continues:
“The education of today's children —tomorrow's scientists — is something of such importance that no government can afford to get it wrong, for failure to produce first-rate intellectual capital in a highly competitive emerging era of 'science-based innovation' will almost certainly carry with it serious economic consequences”.
Specifically, the report calls for
“bolder measures to interest children in science and then retain their interest in it and in its importance for society”,
to
“urgently and dramatically improve the teaching of mathematics and science in schools”,
to
“make teaching of computing more than just ‘IT’ classes and how to use PowerPoint”
and to make
“basic principles of computer science, such as abstraction and codification, a core part of the science curriculum.”
Our amendment would change the national curriculum to include computer science instead of just ICT.

James Clappison: Does my hon. Friend share my interest in the number of sixth-form physics and chemistry teachers who have a degree in their subject? Is he aware of the alarming suggestions that the number is not as great as it should be? Would he welcome further statistics on that from the Minister?

Nick Gibb: I certainly would. My hon. Friend makes an important point. I believe that we will debate a group of amendments on science in a moment. That is why we welcome the extra 3,000 science teachers that the Chancellor promised in his Budget. We need dramatic measures to remedy the crisis in science teachers in this country.
The clause introduces to the Education Act 2002 a new section 85, which lists the core subjects of the national curriculum as maths, English and science, and sets out the foundation subjects ICT, PE and citizenship. It also introduces a new section 85A, which lists the entitlement areas—subjects that students are entitled to study. The clause says that a pupil is entitled
“to follow a course of study in a subject within each of such one or more of the four entitlement areas...as he may choose”
from those listed in subsection (2). The way in which subsection (2) is ordered means that while a student will have an entitlement to study geography or history, he will not have an entitlement to study both. We think that he or she should. Amendment No. 239 would entitle a student to study all the subjects listed in subsection (2).
Amendment No. 84 is consequential to amendment No. 83, which would ensure that there is an entitlement to study English literature to a level that enables the student to take a GCSE in English literature. There is already an entitlement to study literature, but that is included in the English GCSE, which comprises both language and literature. The amendment would give an entitlement to the full English literature GCSE.
Amendment No. 372, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, would add Latin and Greek to the entitlement areas. He is right to say that students who want to study those subjects should be able to do so. It seems a little unfair that only those who can afford private education should have that opportunity. In a previous sitting, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough said:
“In Sheffield, we have a school that offers Latin as part of its language specialism. I believe strongly...that it is important to offer Latin as part of the modern language curriculum. It can be made available to all Sheffield schoolchildren because that school offers it. It is a result of our system’s diversity.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 28 March 2006; c. 93.]
The hon. Lady is right. It is a great pity that Latin has disappeared from the curriculum in the majority of state schools. It is a useful discipline that helps to explain many of the idiosyncrasies of our language and provides a useful building block for the study of modern foreign languages. I have never really understood why it disappeared. Perhaps there is an official DFES line on that.
The situation is very different in Europe. In Italy, Latin is compulsory in schools specialising in science and language. In France, students in the literature stream have the option of studying both Latin and Greek. In Germany, Latin is the third most popular foreign language, with 650,000 students studying it in 2003. In this country, the number of students taking Latin at GCSE has fallen from 26,000 in 1980 to just 9,500 in 2000. The number of those studying it at A-level has fallen from 2,500 in 1980 to just over 1,000 in the year 2000.
With those few remarks, I wait to hear the Minister’s response.

Edward Leigh: With your indulgence, Mr. Cook, may I briefly speak again? I realise that I omitted to speak to amendment No. 372. My hon. Friend has mentioned it, but I will speak to it briefly so that we can get a response from the Minister.
As my hon. Friend said, the amendment seeks to add Latin and Greek to the list of optional subjects that should be available for pupils. Earlier, I mentioned Sir Keith Joseph and his views on the introduction of the national curriculum in the 1980s. He feared that, far from setting a minimum requirement for what should be taught, the national curriculum could become a maximum requirement and that if something was not in the national curriculum it need not be taught. That appears to have happened to Latin and Greek.
In the House of Lords, Lord Joseph, as he became, conceded that if we were to have a national curriculum, it was reasonable to specify English, maths and science, but that it should go no further. We have gone, of course, much further. We are in a completely different world now—and certainly clause 61 takes us much further. Information technology is now a core subject. That is perhaps fair enough. I must query what is taught under the heading of citizenship.
The fear is that if a subject is not mentioned in the national curriculum, it need not be taught. Nowhere does clause 61 mention the classics, nowhere does it mention Latin and Greek. Fortunately, as my hon. Friend said, most independent schools still offer Latin, and some still offer Greek, but the classical languages have virtually died out in maintained schools. They really have become dead languages, unavailable and untaught. The foundation of so much of our language, which is so useful for the learning of other languages—particularly French, Italian and Spanish—has virtually died out. My amendment adds classical Latin and Greek to what is on offer.
Elsewhere there is an exemption for a school that cannot afford to offer all the options, but if enough pupils wanted Latin or Greek I believe that a teacher or teachers would be made available. Of course I share Sir Keith’s opinion—setting a small group of subjects in stone initially was probably a mistake, but we are where we are, and it is now incumbent on the Minister to explain the disastrous decline in the teaching of Latin and Greek in the maintained sector.

Sarah Teather: When listening to the hon. Member for Gainsborough I am reminded of my own attempts to learn classical Greek. I am sure that it was helpful in the long term, but the only word that I can remember is , which means “oh dear”. I remember nothing else.
I am sure that it is useful to have Latin and Greek on offer, but of course it is essential that schools should be able to collaborate to do that. That is one of the points that we tried to make a theme of our comments on the Bill. It is not feasible for all schools to be required to offer those subjects, but if proper collaboration goes on across an area, the young people who want to learn them will be able to.
I shall comment briefly on Conservative amendments, and I hope to catch your eye later on stand part, Mr. Cook.
I am sympathetic to the notion that the theoretical approach to computer sciences is very important to modern science, but the idea that such an approach should be compulsory for all, as amendment No. 355 would make it, may well be barking mad. What is essential is to familiarise young people with the use of a computer. They should know how to use a computer for word processing, spreadsheets and many other things that will help them to do their jobs later in life—not so that they can understand the finer aspects of programming.
At the risk of speaking personally again, I shall never forget my panic on arriving at Cambridge at my first compulsory IT course, for my natural sciences degree, when I realised as I sat in front of a computer that I had no idea how to turn the wretched thing on—not the faintest clue. It was years before I recovered enough from the combination of rising panic, and the horror on my patient boyfriend’s face as he realised how utterly incompetent I was, to approach a computer again and use it. Thankfully time and necessity have got me through. The essential thing is that all young people, regardless of the subjects that they are to study or where they will work, should know how to use a computer. That is the basic requirement, and that is what should be in the national curriculum.
I am sympathetic to amendments Nos. 239 and 84. It seems odd that the entitlements in the Bill require students to choose one course from each of the different sub-groups, whereas young people are much more likely to want to mix dance with drama or music with dance, for example. If they have an aptitude for or interest in such subjects and want to pursue them later such flexibility makes much more sense. I remain very concerned and disappointed by the restrictive elements of the diplomas on offer. It would have been far better if the Government had used this marvellous opportunity to implement the Tomlinson recommendations in full.

Phil Hope: Implementing the amendments would constitute a substantial change to the national curriculum—indeed, it could be described as a wholesale rewriting of the curriculum. As I explained, clause 61 provides entitlements in science and diplomas because of changes elsewhere. However, there are no similar developments in other subjects to create an adequate need to make the changes proposed.
The national curriculum is a careful balance of subjects, which has developed over the years. Indeed, key stage 4 was fully debated only recently, and there was extensive consultation and change in 2004 to provide more flexibility and responsiveness to individual student needs and ensure that students were motivated by their learning.

Nick Gibb: The words that the Minister is uttering sound awfully complacent given the huge concern about the quality of education in our schools. There is a reason why the Prime Minister made education a key issue in 1997 and said that his three priorities would be education, education, education. That concern about quality remains. I am surprised by the Minister’s complacency. He says that a carefully developed balance of subjects has been developed over the years, but there is a crisis in science, a rapid decline in modern languages and a general concern about the quality of teaching in our schools and education. I am afraid that I am disappointed by the Minister’s complacency.

Phil Hope: I am disappointed by the hon. Gentleman’s efforts to run down the excellent achievements by students of all ages in our schools that we have seen in the past nine years. He runs down the teachers who give young people an excellent opportunity to improve their learning and the best possible start in life. He runs down the governors and local education authorities that work in partnership to ensure that young people get a decent education. He talked earlier about a lack of rigour, but his attack is typical of the Conservatives, who left us the mess that they did in 1997. We have done a huge amount to clear it up, and young people are registering record achievements at the ages of 11, 14, 16 and 18. Such levels of achievement have never been seen in this country, and they are the result of investment and reforms of the secondary and primary education system. The hon. Gentleman talks about complacency, but he should take great care before talking up a crisis that does not exist and running down the performance of students, teachers, parents and governors in schools up and down the country.
I particularly challenge the hon. Gentleman on what he says about the changes that we have made to the national curriculum. In 2004, we recognised the needs of students at key stage 4 of the national curriculum. Our curriculum must respond to changes to our society and economy and to the global, competitive world around us. We are modernising the curriculum—science is a good example at key stage 4—to ensure that it continues to be effective, exciting and relevant to our young people. I emphasise that none of those changes will lower standards—quite the reverse. If we want to build on our success so that young people can progress in their learning and to do better, as they have already, we must ensure that the curriculum motivates and engages them and allows them to enjoy and celebrate learning, not only while they are at school, but after they have left and into adult life.
I am pleased to say that standards are rising, but I also appreciate that hon. Members, both here and outside, who have an interest in art and design, music, history, geography, English literature, Latin or classical Greek would like the profiles of those subjects to be raised. The Government understand that, but those with an enthusiasm for ICT and citizenship would not be so happy if their subjects were downgraded as a result of the amendments. Let me talk, therefore, about some of the topics that we have heard so much about from Opposition Members.
Let me talk first about citizenship. I declare an interest, in that in the early 1980s, in a former life, I wrote curriculum packs for use in schools. One was entitled “Local government—making it work for you” and the other was entitled “Education for citizenship”. Sadly they are out of print, so I cannot be accused of trying to feather my nest by mentioning those contributions to the educational development of young people.

Jim Knight: Can they be placed in the Library?

Phil Hope: Unfortunately no copies can be put there, because I do not think that any still exist. That is a great regret, although I leave members of the Committee the challenge of digging one up on the internet.
My point is about the importance of education for citizenship, which is essential for young people’s personal development into confident, productive members of society who are able to deal with life’s challenges, while taking advantages of its opportunities. Citizenship equips young people to become informed, responsible and active citizens. That is crucial to the health of society and of our democracy.

Nadine Dorries: I do not doubt the Minister’s commitment to citizenship, but if the Government’s commitment is so great, why is not greater investment put into the training of teachers to teach citizenship? As we know, less than 1 per cent. of children are taught citizenship, because there is a shortage of teachers who have been trained to teach it.

Phil Hope: I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s support for citizenship, for providing more training for teachers and for ensuring that more of them have the necessary knowledge, skills, experience and skills to teach a subject that can be challenging to get right in the classroom. However, I am not sure that I accept the figure that she quoted. We have a growing network of teachers trained in initial training, during in-service training and through continuous professional development who are able to deliver the citizenship curriculum that is now a compulsory part of the national curriculum. That is important, because citizenship is a subject with a big role to play in bridging the gap in the democratic engagement of the younger generation.

Nadine Dorries: Does the Minister agree that citizenship could be taught through the ethos of the school and through subjects such as history, rather than as a subject on its own? History is dominated by European dictators and so could be used to teach citizenship in a much wider context.

Phil Hope: No, I do not agree. Citizenship needs to be a subject in its own right. It can be taught through other parts of the national curriculum, as I described in the “Education for citizenship” pack that I wrote in the 1980s, which unfortunately is no longer available for the Committee to see. Citizenship is important and the Government support its being part of the national curriculum in the way that it is, to ensure that all young people have access to it.
To refer to some other points that hon. Members made, the statutory place of information and communication technology in the national curriculum is crucial, because it is a vital skill for all. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) was absolutely right to say that ICT provides a powerful tool to support pupils in becoming successful learners, so that they do not have the same experience that she described for us so graphically. It is important that we should retain the current requirements, so that all young people have the opportunity to develop those skills. We have invested £3.5 billion since 1998 to ensure that all schools have the infrastructure to support ICT education. That money would not have been invested by the Opposition, had they been in government.
I am pleased to say that art and design continues to be a popular subject at GCSE. The development of the creative and media diploma from 2008 will provide further opportunities for young people who might have interests or talents in that area. Much is happening in music education, with our music manifesto leading the way, in collaboration with formal and informal educators, to provide rich and varied experiences for all children. I am pleased to say that the uptake of music at key stage 4 is on the increase.
History is already a popular subject at GCSE and beyond. From September 2006, the QCA and Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations will pilot a new GCSE to widen its appeal still further at key stage 4. Geography—a subject that I took at A-level—remains a popular option at GCSE. It has developed in the many years since I sat my A-levels—thankfully I passed. The subject has just received a major boost from the action plan for geography, launched in March. Almost £2 million will go to support the subject over the next two years, which we hope will encourage even more pupils to maintain their studies beyond the age of 14.
English literature, which has been mentioned, is already a compulsory element of key stage 4 of the national curriculum. Because we visit schools up and down the country, we know that pupils are required to study a range of plays, novels, short stories and poetry, including fiction and non-fiction, from a variety of times and cultures. Some 83 per cent. of pupils took the English literature GCSE in 2004-05.

John Hayes: The Minister will know that some people are worried that some of the English classics have been dropped from the curriculum to make way for a range of works from other parts of the world. Is he concerned about that?

Phil Hope: I am not concerned about it. Those who are charged with the task of delivering English literature teaching in our schools do so on a very well informed basis. They understand the variety and diversity available to them when choosing the syllabuses—the plays, novels and stories that they choose to encourage young people to study in a way that motivates them. Therein lies the critical point of everything that we have discussed today: not just raising standards but engaging, motivating and encouraging young people to enjoy their learning. When a student aged 16 says, “Thank God that’s over” and leaves school, we have a problem and we know that we have failed. Young people should instead be saying, “I am looking forward to my next opportunity to learn, to develop and to progress in my life.”
I wish to mention Latin and classical Greek, because others have done so. We believe the classics to be rigorous, challenging subjects and well worth—[Interruption.]

Frank Cook: Order. I have been trying to remain silent on this issue. Some of you may have noticed that the dreaded hearing aids have arrived and are in place. They are remarkably effective, but they seem to bring to my attention an extraordinarily disconcerting level of sibilant chuntering from both sides of the Committee and occasionally even from the back of the room. I need to be able to concentrate and keep you people in order. Please, let us have less of it. Thank you.

Phil Hope: I am grateful, Mr. Cook, because the “sibilant chuntering,” as you put it, is not helping us to pursue our task.
I believe that the classics are worth studying on their own merit, but education exists to prepare young people for the challenges of the world in which they live. There are only so many school hours in the day, and all pupils in England already study aspects of ancient Greek civilisation and its influence on the modern world as part of their history study. It is for individual schools and their governing bodies to decide whether to offer classics as part of the curriculum, based on demand for the subject, whether they have a specialist classics teacher available and how well it will meet pupils’ needs. It is not only private schools that offer such subjects; I know of secondary schools in my constituency that are taking up the opportunity.
Amendment No. 84 would change the wording of the clause to accommodate previous amendments. Assuming that we do not accept the other amendments, we need not accept amendment No. 84. If those amendments are not accepted, it should not be pressed.
On amendment No. 239, pupils are currently entitled to follow one course in each of the entitlement areas. The amendment would allow pupils to follow as many courses in each area as they wished. I emphasise to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that geography, history, PE, art and design and music are all compulsory subjects at key stage 3. It is at key stage 4 that we have introduced entitlements to provide more choice and flexibility. Obliging schools to provide on demand numerous courses in every entitlement area would place an impossible burden on them. We expect all schools to make as broad a range of provision as possible, but it is not appropriate to create an unreasonable requirement, which it would be beyond the capacity of many schools to deliver. Smaller secondary schools would find that particularly impractical, so we need to strike a balance between the choices that are made available to pupils through their entitlements and the capacity of schools to deliver those entitlements. I hope that, having heard why we resist the amendments, hon. Members will feel able not to press them.
I should like to finish with amendment No. 355, which seeks to replace the teaching of ICT at key stage 4 with the teaching of computer science. I would not go as far as the hon. Member for Brent, East, but the terms computing and computer science are usually taken to refer to the more technical aspects of computing programming, computer architecture, computer systems and so on, whereas ICT aims to develop the more generic skills that young people need in order to create, store, develop and share information in all its forms and to solve problems. To rename the national curriculum programme of studies “computer science” would not reflect either the aims or the content of the ICT curriculum. That is designed to provide all pupils with the important skill of being able to make effective use of ICT tools. Such skills are increasingly essential for life and for work.
Finally, we are going to debate science under a later set of amendments. However, a number of points have been made that I should like to correct. We are concerned about the decline in A-level science entries, which the hon. Member for Hertsmere mentioned. However, I want to assure the Committee that we have recently set targets so that by 2014 the number of A-level entries will have increased to 35,000 in physics, 37,000 in chemistry and 56,000 in mathematics. To achieve that, we will step up the recruitment, retraining and retention of physics, chemistry and maths specialist teachers to ensure that they are available.
I am pleased to say that there was a 30 per cent. increase in science teacher recruitment between 1997-98 and 2004-05, and we shall further increase the number of science teachers through recruitment incentives, training programmes and other activities. We fully support the comments that have been made about the importance of science, and we are taking action to deal with the issue. I hope that, having heard my remarks in response to a wide range of amendments, hon. Members will feel able to withdraw those amendments.

Nick Gibb: There is concern about the curriculum content. Perhaps it has not yet filtered through to the DFES, but in the next few months the Opposition will hold a series of seminars on the curriculum, reflecting real concerns among teachers and the public. The issues need to be debated widely and in public. Too often, debates on curriculum content have taken place inside education circles, so the issues have not been aired in public. That is why I greatly welcome the debate that we have had today. It has been the start of our bringing the issues into the open so that the public can decide what is incorporated into the curriculum that is taught to the next generation of children, and so that decisions about such matters are not made behind closed doors in the absence of policy makers and elected Members of Parliament.
It has been a good debate. We will not press most of the amendments, but I should like to press amendment 239, which would entitle a student at a secondary school to take both history and geography, not to have an entitlement to just one or the other. It was important to raise the issue of computer science, which is a matter of concern to an important research body, Microsoft Research, in Cambridge. I hope that the DFES will consider its concerns about the long-term future scientific training of our young people, so that computer science begins to be taught as an academic subject. I do not say that it should be compulsory for all children in a school, but there is a case for bringing it into the curriculum if we want to compete in this technically demanding world.

Edward Leigh: I should like to withdraw amendment No. 409, because it can be subsumed into amendment No. 239, which promotes history and which my hon. Friend intends to press. However, I should like to press amendment No. 372, with its emphasis on making Latin and Greek available to pupils as optional subjects, because it is a cause of great sadness that there has been a disastrous decline in Latin and Greek in the maintained sector, and I believe that a vote on the subject would be useful. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 238B, in clause 61, page 43, line 7, at end insert
‘and
(d) modern foreign languages, comprising any modern foreign language specified in an order made by the Secretary of State or, if the order so specifies, any modern foreign language.'.—[Mr. Gibb.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 15.

Question accordingly negatived.

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 385, in clause 61, page 43, line 7, at end insert
‘and
(d) personal, social and health education.'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 386, in clause 61, page 43, line 7, at end insert—
‘(4A) Provision shall be made by the school for any relevant cultural, religious, secular or health considerations of the pupils undertaking the programme of study in the foundation subject referred to in subsection (4)(d).'.
New clause 44—Curriculum requirements for first, second and third key stages—
‘In section 84 of EA 2002 (curriculum requirements for first, second and third key stages), after subsection (3)(g), insert—
“(ga) personal, social and health education,”.'.

Annette Brooke: I should like to say a little about what I understand by personal, social and health education and then explain the purpose of the amendments. I see personal, social and health education as a very important part of promoting the emotional and social development of children and young people. We touched on the issue early in our discussions when we talked about the importance of emotional literacy and I praised the Government’s SEAL—social and emotional aspects of learning—programme.
As far as the curriculum is concerned, I believe that personal, social and health education should include the acquisition of information on a range of health issues that are relevant to age, maturity and understanding, including emotional and health well-being, sex and relationships—relationships are the most important aspect of that—diet and exercise, alcohol, tobacco, drugs, careers and safety. It should certainly include the development of emotional and social skills, including skills for learning, achieving, managing change and looking after health, and the exploration and clarification of values and beliefs, including respect, morality and an understanding of cultural diversity.
It is interesting that some elements of what people perhaps talk about most in relation to PSHE are included in the science curriculum. That curriculum, focusing on the provision of information, needs to be well supported in respect of the development of skills, emotional literacy and relationship education. Everyone will be aware that there is an enormous range of offerings of PSHE in different schools and learning institutions. Some schools have excellent provision, whereas others provide very little such education or provide education of poor quality. Sometimes schools have few resources and do not invest in their staff’s professional development.
The amendment would not be effective without a commitment in respect of the training and qualifications of the teachers involved. We often read in the tabloids about teachers claiming that they have been made to teach certain subjects and that they are not qualified. That is the bottom-line, worst aspect of what I am talking about, and is serious.
I know that the DFES has been running a pilot programme promoting social, emotional and behavioural skills. The evidence so far is that those skills are central to personal and professional success in life and are fundamental to school improvement through contribution to environments that support effective learning and teaching, and collaborative approaches to raising achievement, positive behaviour, full attendance, and staff and pupil emotional health and well-being. That area underpins more or less everything else that we are talking about and has a wide impact on learning.
The amendments go beyond key stage 4 and talk about key stages 1 to 3, because we are talking about a holistic programme. Whatever the jibes, it is vital that it starts at key stage 1. Much is made in literature about sex education for seven-year-olds, but I shall explain why that one small part of PSHE is vital for seven-year-olds. Like me, some Members present served on the Committee that considered the Sexual Offences Bill. During our deliberations, I learned a great deal about things that I did not realise happened. For example, a child living in an abnormal family does not know that they are living in abnormal circumstances because they do not have a yardstick by which to measure normality. How does a child of seven know that child abuse is not normal if they are not receiving appropriate education at that age? That is why it ought to be compulsory, because the very children who need that education could be withdrawn. 
Part of the amendment picks up on various cultural differences, as hon. Members would expect. I feel passionately about this issue. The whole core syllabus worked through from key stage 1 has an important part to play in the future of so many children’s lives. Key stage 4 is critical in supporting more mature learning and making sure that we are considering all the health aspects and diet, which might concern obesity or anorexia. I sincerely believe that it should be compulsory.
We have the dubious honour of having one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in Europe. I was pleased to read that the Government’s “teens and tots” pilot scheme is to be rolled out further. The scheme, which fits into the framework, is offered to youngsters who are at particular risk. It is horses for courses in what is offered to children and young people. It has to be right and it has to be done well with well-qualified teachers. Whether the amendment is worded quite rightly or not, I hope that the Government will consider having a compulsion element to this subject.

Phil Hope: Those with an enthusiasm for or interest in PSHE cannot help but be impressed by the passion with which the hon. Lady spoke. She may not know that I share her enthusiasm. I was a member of the national advisory group on PSHE established by the Department in 1998, in the Labour Government’s first term. Without wishing to list my literary achievements, I tell the Committee that I am the author of “Education for Parenthood”—a curriculum pack for schools on that aspect of education. [Interruption.] Yes, a bestseller. I think that it has sold out—I could not find any more copies once I had visited the tip. I am the author also of publications on leaving home and homelessness among young people. Another theme that affects young people’s lives is the difficult transition from childhood to adulthood.
The hon. Lady was right to stress the importance of PSHE. I can assure her that it is taught already at all key stages from five to 16 through a non-statutory framework introduced in 2000. Indeed, many aspects of PSHE are already statutory elements of the national curriculum, such as sex and relationships, drug education and careers guidance. All those come under the PSHE umbrella.
I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Lady, but we do not believe that we should make PSHE, as a whole, a statutory subject because we do not think that making it a statutory entitlement automatically would lead to improvements in the teaching and learning of PSHE. She herself raised the point about training. The clause deals with key stage 4, and introducing a new statutory subject does not fit with the direction in which we wish to take 14-to-19 flexibilities.
The hon. Lady was right, however, to highlight the importance of raising the quality of the delivery of PSHE. It is essential that we get that right. The example that she gave demonstrates how sensitive and difficult it can be to teach PSHE in a classroom. Working on topics in the way she described can lead to a number of issues that require skilful handling such as incidents of disclosure and so on that teachers must deal with in the classroom as lessons are being taught.
Our approach would be to improve the effectiveness of what is taught in PSHE by providing clear guidance, by supporting teachers’ continuous professional development and by identifying and disseminating good practice. We want to do that by ensuring that teachers have access to high-quality professional development opportunities through our investment in the PSHE certification programme, which the hon. Lady did not mention, but which will make a real difference to standards and quality.
Furthermore, we want to continue to expand the national healthy schools programme which requires schools to provide high-quality PSHE programmes. That will cover a wide range of themes and topics of interest and relevance to the issues that the hon. Lady described. We have provided schools with additional guidance and support to help them to deliver better PSHE including some recently published units of work from the QCA—before anyone asks, I had nothing to do with that—and have established a PSHE subject association to provide a support network for teachers who can often feel quite isolated and under-confident about taking on a difficult topic.
Finally, on the requirement in the amendments for PSHE to take account of people’s cultural, religious, secular and health considerations, we believe that the existing PSHE framework adequately addresses that issue. Within that framework, all schools are asked to teach pupils at key stage 4 about the diversity of different ethnic groups in order to challenge prejudice and to work co-operatively with different people. That is supported further by other DFES guidance on sex and drug education, which also highlights diversity issues.
The PSHE certificate for teachers, to which I referred earlier, asks them to demonstrate an understanding of difference and diversity and its application to the teaching of PSHE. On that basis and despite our shared enthusiasm for the subject, I invite the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.

Annette Brooke: I feel reassured by the Minister’s comments, but I have to say that there is a long way to go because there is still such a difference between schools.
I believe that the subject needs to be compulsory but I am hesitant to push the matter to a vote because I know that teachers have not had enough training in that area. It is a catch-22 situation: which comes first—compulsion or training? I shall return to that point because I believe sincerely that those important elements that I mentioned should be compulsory.
I am pleased that the Minister added some of the points that I did not make due to time, and that the importance of PSHE from key stage 1 onwards has been acknowledged. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Edward Leigh: I beg to move amendment No. 371, in clause 61, page 43, line 14, at end insert—
‘(c) selected by the governors as being equivalent to, or better than qualifications currently approved by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 81, in clause 61, page 43, line 14, at end insert—
‘(5A) A pupil in the fourth key stage is entitled, if he so elects, to follow a course of study in science that leads to separate qualifications in—
(a) biology,
(b) chemistry, and
(c) physics.'.
No. 431, in clause 61, page 43, line 14, at end insert—
‘(5A) From the beginning of the school year commencing in 2008, a pupil in the fourth key stage who attained at least level six in assessments in science for the purposes of the National Curriculum at the end of the third key stage shall be entitled to follow a course of study in science which leads to separate qualifications in the three sciences.'.
No. 432, in clause 61, page 43, line 14, at end insert—
‘(5A) From the beginning of the school year commencing in 2008, all schools designated as specialist science schools under the specialist schools programme shall offer courses of study which lead to separate qualifications in the three sciences to any pupil in the fourth key stage who achieved at least level six in assessments in science for the purposes of the National Curriculum at the end of the third key stage.'.
No. 82, in clause 61, page 43, line 40, at end insert—
‘(aa) sciences, comprising—
(i) biology,
(ii) chemistry, and
(iii) physics,'.

Edward Leigh: Amendment No. 371 would restore to the governors of a maintained school the choice of which examinations should be offered to pupils instead of being limited to those approved by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Maintained schools may, of course, follow only courses and examinations approved by the Secretary of State, which in practice means the QCA. If I am wrong, I will be corrected.
Pupils have been encouraged in the past to pursue a general science course and qualification, and I know from personal experience that pressure is often put on children to do general science. I commend the Government for recognising at last that for many scientifically gifted pupils it is better to study for an examination in separate sciences, either all three—chemistry, physics and biology—or one or two of them. That is now to be allowed under the entitlements for students at the fourth key stage. That is good as far as it goes.
However, I have been told that the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has recast the syllabuses this year and that examinations in those three sciences will start for courses commencing in September this year. The new chemistry, physics and biology courses and examinations are much simpler and of a more general nature than heretofore, and the new GCSE in those subjects will be much simpler and easier. Some people have accused the QCA of dumbing them down to attract more pupils. The Under-Secretary is shaking his head and no doubt he will let us know what is happening on the ground.
If that is happening, the disadvantage of the QCA’s ploy is that the new GCSE in those sciences will be a poor starting point for those wishing to pursue one or more of those sciences to AS and A2 level. If that is not happening, why are so many independent schools overcoming that disadvantage by switching to the international GCSE for chemistry, physics and biology—and, by the way, for mathematics which they say has also been hit by dumbing down—which is approximately equivalent to the old O-level, and thus a much better grounding for pupils wanting to study sciences and mathematics to A2 level and on to a degree.

Nadine Dorries: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware that evidence taken by the Education and Skills Committee showed that the overwhelming number of students going to university to study core sciences now come from the independent sector and not the maintained sector.

Edward Leigh: That is worrying. We discussed Latin and Greek when debating the previous group of amendments. We are now discussing an even more vital area for the country’s future. It is just about possible for the Under-Secretary to argue that Latin and Greek are not vital for the country’s future, but if my hon. Friend is right—she speaks with authority as a member of the Select Committee, having listened to the evidence at first hand—that the science sector is dominated increasingly by the independent sector, that is extremely worrying.
The Under-Secretary must be aware that there is a lively debate about dumbing down in chemistry, physics and biology to attract more pupils, and he must be worried that many independent schools are turning their backs on the QCA and switching to the IGCSE. Maintained schools should, entirely at the governors’ discretion—I have tried to maintain that requirement as consistently as possible in my amendments, given the shape of the Bill—have the same opportunities as independent schools to adopt the IGCSE for those subjects.
Under my amendment, courses and examinations would be
“equivalent to, or better than”
those approved by the QCA, so that there is no chance, even at the governors’ discretion, of going for something that is inferior to the QCA. No one can argue with the fact that the IGCSE is better and more demanding than the GCSE. The Under-Secretary may argue that point—although I have not heard it argued, at least as far as chemistry, physics, biology and mathematics are concerned—but I see no harm in the Government agreeing to the amendments and giving some of our most scientifically gifted pupils the chance to take an internationally recognised qualification.

Nick Gibb: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend, who made important points about the study of science.
The amendments relate to the study of science in our schools. Chemistry departments in some of our key universities—most notably and recently, the five-star chemistry department at Sussex university—are closing. It is becoming increasingly clear that science education is in crisis in this country. The principal reason given by the vice-chancellor of Sussex university for the closure of the department was falling demand among undergraduates for chemistry, and the principal reason for that is the fall in the numbers studying chemistry at A-level.
In 1985, there were 40,337 entries for A-level chemistry; by 2005, the number had fallen to 38,851. The figures for physics and maths are even worse: in 1985, 71,000 students entered for maths A-level; by 2005, the number had fallen to 58,000. For physics A-level, the figures are 46,000 and just 28,000 respectively. Only biology has seen a rise—from 40,000 A-level entries in 1985 to 54,000 by 2005.
Why has there been such a dramatic fall in the numbers taking chemistry and physics A-level in the past 20 years? The answer lies in part with the double award science GCSE, which arose as an unforeseen consequence of the last Conservative Administration’s making science compulsory at GCSE. There was an attempt to include an element of all three sciences in what people were required to study.
Unfortunately, the double award became almost universal in the state sector. In 2003-04, 479,000 students took the double award GCSE, compared with the 43,000 who took the three separate sciences of biology, chemistry and physics. A large number of those studying the three separate sciences are from the private sector. According to a study by Professor Alan Smithers and Dr. Pamela Robinson of the centre for education and employment research at the university of Buckingham, only 35.9 per cent. of comprehensive schools offer physics GCSE, compared with 78.4 per cent. of independent schools.
That has translated into A-level results, and the independent sector accounts for 37.2 per cent. of the A grades at A-level physics, despite the fact that it educates only 7 per cent. of children. That information came to light as a result of a parliamentary question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries). Those interested in the state of science education in our schools will be interested in the series of answers.

James Clappison: If it is right that independent schools are switching to the IGCSE qualification, is it not likely that the situation will get even worse in future?

Nick Gibb: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I hope that we can arrest the decline of science teaching in the state sector. They amendments would help to do that. Also, we must make it possible for the maintained sector to use the IGCSE, because at the moment, it is not permitted to.
Other issues are tied up with the growth of the double award GCSE, such as the shortage of suitably qualified physics and chemistry teachers.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: The hon. Gentleman is clearly right to have concerns about science in schools and the number of students taking science at university. However, we know from this year’s application figures that the number of people wanting to study science at university is increasing, so it looks as though the Government are starting to turn that around.
The picture is much more complicated than the one described by the hon. Gentleman. We know that students who might traditionally have gone to university to study chemistry, for example, have been taking forensic science or similar subjects during the past few years. The problem is not quite as straightforward as he suggests. I do not think that he can simply blame it on GCSEs.

Nick Gibb: The hon. Lady underestimates the seriousness of the problem. The point about applications was put to the vice-chancellor of the university of Sussex, and he pointed out that applications do not translate into accepted places. He said that there is still a problem. Despite the fact that applications to study chemistry at the university are going up, their translation into places is declining. That is the important point.
Also, it is not fair to say that people are going into other subjects such as forensic science. I have not examined the university forensic science curriculum in detail, but I suspect that it is more of a vocational study having to do with court appearances and the like, and that it is not as rigorous an academic subject as pure chemistry, which we need if we are to compete in the innovative scientific world of the future. We need people in our universities who are highly educated in the pure sciences.
There are other reasons for the problem. One is teachers, but another is the proportion of the timetable devoted to science. If a student studies all three sciences, it takes up 30 per cent. of the timetable, whereas studying for the double award science GCSE takes up just 20 per cent. Science should take up 30 per cent. of the timetable regardless of whether the pupil goes on to study science after age 16. My parents insisted that I take all three science O-levels even though I intended to study arts A-levels because I wanted to be a lawyer. It was the right decision for me—it gave me a more rounded and broader education—but that would not necessarily be the case for everyone.
I shall give an example of how education has been dumbed down. Prior to the takeover of the double award science GCSE, a student wanting to study the three sciences at A-level would almost certainly have studied them separately at O-level or GCSE, and the three sciences would have represented about 30 per cent. of the timetable. Today, assuming that such students are in the state sector, they will almost certainly study the double award science GCSE, which takes up about 20 per cent. of the timetable. Those students will study a third less science than they would have done prior to the advent of the double award, and will therefore be a third less prepared for the three sciences at A-level.
Amendment No. 81 would introduce an entitlement to study for separate qualifications in biology, chemistry and physics. In other words, students would be entitled to study the three separate sciences if they chose to do so. The Bill entitles a pupil to study
“a course of study in science”
that the governing body of his or her school chooses from those approved
“by the Secretary of State by order”.
Proposed new section 85(5) of the Education Act 2002 states:
“A pupil in the fourth key stage is entitled, if he so elects, to follow a course of study in science which leads to such qualification or set of qualifications as the governing body may choose from among those—
(a) approved under section 98 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000”
and those
“specified by the Secretary of State by order”.
The draft regulations circulated to Committee members say:
“The following are specified as sets of qualifications for the purposes”
of the section:
“(a) Science GCSE and Additional Science GCSE”,
which is the new alternative to the double award, or
“(b) Physics GCSE, Chemistry GCSE and Biology GCSE.”
Under the provisions of the Bill and connected regulations, a pupil will be entitled to study the three separate sciences only if the governing body so chooses. We believe that all children should be entitled to study the three sciences, and amendment No. 81 would allow them to do that.

Sarah Teather: I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. Does he accept that if the Government implemented the Tomlinson report and required all schools to collaborate, that would provide students with an entitlement to study the subjects that they chose? That would include the three sciences.

Nick Gibb: I share the Government’s view on the Tomlinson proposals. They are absolutely right to reject them and to incorporate only the report’s vocational elements. How schools deliver the entitlement would be up to them. They could do it by collaborating with other schools in the area.
I am pleased to say, however, that the Minister for Higher Education and Lifelong Learning agrees with us. At Education questions, he said:
“we propose to establish co-operation between schools, colleges and universities by 2008, so that every child who wishes to choose triple science will be able to do so.”—[Official Report, 27 April 2006; Vol. 445, c. 701.]
That reflects the hon. Lady’s comments.
Studying three separate sciences at GCSE is important for pupils who want to study science at A-level, as well as those who want to achieve a broad and rounded education, regardless of their ultimate goals. Increasingly, however, such options are available only in the private sector, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said in respect of Latin. He also said that many independent schools are opting for the international GCSE, or IGCSE, in science, rather than the normal GCSE, but that option is not available to the state sector. However, we shall debate those points on amendments Nos. 241 to 243.
Amendment No. 431 would, from 2008, entitle all pupils who attain at least level 6 in national curriculum tests at key stage 3 to study the three sciences. That is a fall-back position, because we believe that all children should be entitled to study all three sciences.
Amendment No. 432 would require specialist schools to offer the three sciences to all pupils who achieve level 6 at key stage 3. Again, that is a fall-back position, because we believe that all children in all schools, regardless of their specialism, should have that entitlement. However, that position should have the support of the Government, and particularly of Ministers who want to curry favour with the Labour party’s future leadership, because the amendment is based on the policies announced in the Budget. According to the Budget report, the Government have given a commitment to
“entitle, from 2008, all pupils achieving at least level 6 at Key Stage 3 to study three separate science GCSEs to increase progression to and attainment at A level science”.
That commitment was repeated on pages 39 and 48 of “Science Innovation Investment Framework 2004-2014: Next Steps”, which says that the Government will deliver on it by 2008. Those policies are welcome and will receive our full support. The amendment would merely include them in the Bill, so I hope that it will receive the Government’s full support.
Finally, amendment No. 82 would add the separate individual sciences—physics, chemistry and biology—as an entitlement area under the Bill. Currently, the entitlement is just science, but if the amendment were accepted, it would allow pupils to take individual sciences in addition to compulsory science under the core national curriculum. A pupil who is not going to take the three separate sciences might prefer to study just one or two of the individual sciences in more depth, rather than take the double award GCSE or the single science GCSE.
That is particularly important given that the new so-called 21st-century programme of science study is not an in-depth study of traditional science and not about the nuts and bolts of physics, chemistry or biology, but more about current issues in the debate about science, such as the environment and food quality. For those who worry about the teaching of creationism, the new OCR biology segment of the science GCSE has a module about how
“the fossil record has been interpreted differently over time (e.g. creationist interpretation).”
For those who opt to study the single science GCSE, it would be a very poor grounding in science. The Minister for Higher Education and Lifelong Learning estimates that one in five will study fewer than two sciences at GCSE. Without the additional science GCSE, that 20 per cent. will not be properly equipped to flourish in our technically demanding age.
Science is a crucial subject in this new global information age. Over the past 20 years, we have seen an alarming decline in the quality and quantity of science teaching at secondary school. The Government have promised 3,000 more science teachers, which is welcome, but we also need a more demanding curriculum and greater opportunities to study science at a proper level in our schools. The amendments would go some way towards achieving that, and I hope that they will have the Committee’s support.

Nadine Dorries: On amendment No. 81, the British science base is one of the things that have made this country so successful over the past few years. That is particularly true of life science, such as innovative drug research, and there is a large female contingent in that specialty, which is why I am particularly interested in it. Unfortunately, the major employers of life scientists in this country have found it harder and harder to recruit from universities because of the impact that not teaching pure science in the maintained sector has had on the number of A-level and degree level students.
Whichever branch of science one cares to mention, this country has been at the cutting edge of research and development. In fact, some of us may be reliant on drugs researched and developed in the UK by British scientists. Zantac, which is used by those of us who suffer from stomach ulcers, was developed not many miles from here at the Glaxo Wellcome site in Greenford.
The scientists who work on the development of drugs such as Zantac are the best in the field. They possess scientific knowledge that has been gathered over many years, beginning with study at GCSE level of pure sciences, usually chemistry and biology, and then at A-level, through to degree level and so on. Some of the UK’s largest employers—Glaxo Wellcome, SmithKline Beecham and Pfizer—will not be able to continue to invest in research and development to the extent that they do if the scientific knowledge base in this country continues to dwindle. Those organisations are huge. I believe that Pfizer’s premises now take up almost the whole of Sandwich and Reigate. They are almost like mini-cities, and the company employs many thousands of people, many of them scientists.
A report prepared by the university of Buckingham states that science subjects, particularly physics, may die out altogether in schools. Part of the problem, of course, is the lack of specialised science teachers. It is almost a self-fulfilling prophecy that if pure science is not taught at schools, students will not go on to study it at university and then there will be no teachers to teach students. The National Foundation for Educational Research has stated that shortages of well qualified maths and science teachers are worst in schools with low GCSE scores and in those serving the poorest communities.
What will happen to the northern scientist, the brilliant chap who is probably right now working on a bench in a lab at a Glaxo Wellcome or Pfizer site? He is likely to have singed eyebrows and his shirt on inside out. The northern scientist is a well-known phenomenon. As we speak, he is probably developing drugs that will save lives and make the day-to-day life of those suffering from chronic illness much more bearable. He will have grown up in the north of England on a council estate and will have been spotted by a teacher in a school that brought out the talent in that young man, or woman, because it had the ability to teach science at the level that was required for that person to go on to contribute to those large organisations.
I well remember a boy from my secondary school who went on to study science at Cambridge. We had not even heard of Cambridge as a town, never mind as a university—to be frank, many of us had not even heard of university. That boy is now one of the leading drug research scientists in the UK, yet he came from an incredibly poor inner-city council estate, as I did, and studied pure chemistry and biology in a secondary modern school. Children in that school now would not have that opportunity, as the school teaches only dual sciences.
Major drug companies traditionally do the milk round, visiting universities, interviewing science students and competing with each other to secure the best. The pool of emerging talent in the UK is becoming smaller and smaller, and the drug companies are looking more to the States, Europe and the BRIC countries—Brazil, Russia, India and China—for talent. The closure of the science departments at Essex and Sussex universities has to have an impact on the number of students coming forward for those major organisations to recruit.
It is not that children do not want to study pure science at school. Figures from the OCR exam board, which interviewed 950 children in England last year aged between 13 and 16, revealed that 45 per cent. would take up biology, 32 per cent. chemistry, 29 per cent. physics, and 19 per cent. combined science, which is the only subject that will be on offer to them. Unfortunately, combined science does not go into nearly enough depth to enable students to study at A-level and achieve the grades needed to go on to study to the level required by the UK’s major employers, particularly in the sciences in demand. Companies at the leading edge of research need well qualified students who have had a good grounding from GCSE level in the pure sciences.
I hope that the Minister will consider our amendments. As somebody who was educated at a secondary modern school, it grated on me to hear a witness tell the Education and Skills Committee that an overwhelming proportion of science students at university come from the independent sector. I take on board the point made by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods) about sciences, including forensic sciences, getting more complex. However, forensic science subjects are watered down: there are courses in forensics with media or with other subjects, but not in pure forensics as there used to be. It is almost as though forensics courses are being designed to cater for the standard of science in schools.
I finish with a quote from Lord Rees, the president of the Royal Society. Talking about a report by the National Foundation for Educational Research, he said:
“This report reveals a disappointing number of teachers with a specialism in the subjects that need it most.
If we are to halt the worrying decline of numbers of students studying maths and the sciences, physics and chemistry in particular, at A-level and beyond, then we need teachers who are both enthused and knowledgeable in the subjects that they are required to teach.”
I endorse the view that we need teachers who are enthused and will inspire the children in our poorer communities, who do not have the opportunity to study science. We will not have such teachers if science continues to be dumbed down in schools.

James Clappison: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friends, and I agree with every word they said. They raised a subject of great importance to our country. I particularly praise my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton for his careful research into the subject and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) for drawing on her personal experience. I am sure that the Minister will want to respond to the important points made by her and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, who described the new science courses being introduced by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. The Minister will want to tell us that those courses will be as rigorous as past courses.
I share the concern about the fate of sciences in the maintained sector, and I worry when I hear that there is a shortage of children in the maintained sector studying A-levels and going on to university. That is borne out by the overall statistics for science, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, which are worrying. I have also seen the statistics, and by my substandard maths it seems that the trend of decline is accelerating. I do not know how much connection one can draw between that and the closure of university science departments, but common sense suggests that a decline in demand might have that effect.
There seems to be something strange happening if, when our economy is crying out for a good science base, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire said, and we need more science graduates to teach, we are seeing the closure of so many science departments in our universities. We must consider that if we are to answer some of the questions raised in the amendments.
On Second Reading, I referred to the closure of science departments, particularly in the field of chemistry. I said that chemistry departments had closed at Sussex, Exeter, King’s college, London, Queen Mary’s college, London, Dundee and Surrey. I can end on a slightly happier note, because since then I have received a letter from Surrey university telling me that I was completely wrong, which is not entirely unusual, and that chemistry is “alive and well” at Surrey. I am told by the university:
“Our Division of Chemical & Analytical Sciences, based in the School of Biomedical and Molecular Sciences, offers undergraduate programmes in Chemistry, Chemistry with Forensic Investigation, Medicinal Chemistry, and Computer-Aided Chemistry. We also offer a taught MSc and Postdoctoral programmes.”
The letter continued:
“It would be good for chemistry, and the University of Surrey, if you were able to draw the House's attention to the above during an appropriate debate.”
I think that this is an appropriate moment to draw it to our attention. It sounds excellent, and I commend the university of Surrey.

Phil Hope: I shall first address amendment No. 371. The Learning and Skills Act 2000 introduced the current process for approving qualifications that are to be publicly funded and taught in maintained schools because it was felt necessary to rationalise the plethora of qualifications on offer and ensure that publicly funded qualifications met certain standards. The approval process protects learners, who know if they take an approved qualification that it is of high quality and carefully regulated.
The QCA is recognised in that Act as the Government’s adviser on qualifications issues. Only when a qualification has been accredited by the QCA will it be submitted to the Secretary of State for approval. That enables the QCA to ensure that standards are maintained across all qualifications in the national qualifications framework and that appropriate monitoring and quality assurance procedures are in place. Allowing governors to enter pupils for qualifications that have not been accredited by the QCA or approved under the Act would be a retrograde step that would undermine our ability to ensure that the qualifications available to learners are high quality and rigorously policed.
I should like to address the IGCSE, which Opposition Members have mentioned and which we may debate again later. I emphasise that neither Cambridge International Examinations nor Edexcel International have ever submitted their IGCSE qualifications to the QCA for accreditation. However, we are aware of a growing interest in IGCSE in some quarters, so we have asked the QCA to do some work and consider its relative merits. Both Cambridge International Examinations and Edexcel have agreed to take part in a QCA-commissioned comparability study of GCSE and IGCSE, which will be completed in July on the basis of the need to follow the correct approval procedure for qualifications, and for maintaining the quality of delivery.
With that explanation of where we are taking that debate, I hope the hon. Member for Gainsborough will ask leave to withdraw his amendment.

Edward Leigh: This process will work through, so assuming that the Bill becomes an Act and this amendment is not agreed to or pushed, how do we get the IGCSE accepted?

Phil Hope: The difficulty is that the awarding bodies have not advanced their proposals through the QCA process, which, as I have just described, is important to ensure quality. Because of the growing interest, the comparability study, which will report in July, will bring forward proposals to overcome those dilemmas. The qualification will still have to go through the formal process, as we go forward. I should like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is awareness of the issue and an attempt to take steps to resolve it.
I want to turn to amendments Nos. 81, 82, 431 and 432. As a former science teacher, regrettably without a book to my name on how to teach science—

Jonathan R Shaw: It is a library.

Phil Hope: It is a catalogue of books.
I share the aspiration to strengthen the opportunities available for pupils to pursue science learning. Given that enthusiasm for science learning, I consider that the clause as originally drafted, along with other measures, would be more effective in achieving the aspiration that Opposition Members have articulated.
The science entitlement in clause 61 is designed to ensure that all key stage 4 pupils are able to follow science courses that prepare them for further study of physics, chemistry and biology at A-level and beyond, through two routes: either by taking the three GCSEs in physics, chemistry and biology or the two GCSEs in science and additional science. At this stage, I should like clearly, on the record, to reject the notion articulated by the hon. Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and for Mid-Bedfordshire that science GCSEs are being dumbed down. I do not particularly like that phrase, either. I reject any suggestion from Conservative Members or anyone else that the new science GCSEs lower standards in any way. The new GCSEs maintain the breadth, depth and challenge of the current GCSEs and will continue to prepare pupils well for A-levels in physics, chemistry and biology. That is not just the Government talking; I have a range of supportive quotes. The chief executive of the Association for Science Education, Derek Bell, said
“The introduction of the new range of GCSEs in science is the result of a widely based consensus across the science and industrial communities. These new courses will challenge students to think and engage in the processes of science rather than simply ‘learn by rote’.”
The vice president of the Royal Society said:
“Many scientists are extremely supportive of reforming the science curriculum to make it more relevant to young people and more revealing about science. We hope that the new suite of science GCSEs will give young people a more accurate taste of the true dynamism of science and the scientific method, as well as inspiring students about science and encouraging more of them to choose science after the age of 16.”

John Hayes: I guess that the hon. Gentleman’s prickliness is evidence of guilt. We have heard that fewer students from the maintained sector are studying sciences and that fewer students from the maintained sector are studying languages. We know that many English students are studying second-rate texts and that many people who are studying history do not know much about the chronology of history. There is a crisis in respect of rigour and standards, and the hon. Gentleman should wake up and do something about it.

Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman disappoints me. He has joined his hon. Friend on the Front Bench once again to criticise children and students who are working extremely hard.

Nick Gibb: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Hope: I shall not give way, because I, like my hon. Friends, am becoming tired of the continual running down of the work of our teachers, schools and governing bodies and the achievements of our young people at every level in the school system today. It simply will not do to use children for political point scoring and ammunition for the Conservatives’ failed ideology.
I now wish to slay two other dragons. Sussex university will not be making a final decision about whether its chemistry department will close until later this month. If it does close, other universities in the south-east will provide extra chemistry places to compensate. The fact is that in the current academic year we have seen a 12 per cent. increase in the number of students applying to study chemistry. We shall see a further 5 per cent. increase next year.
In passing, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton referred to the OCR and its inclusion of creationism. Let me clear about such matters. I want to nail this one once and for all. Creationism is not part of the national curriculum for science. It is a belief and, as such, does not lie within scientific understanding. Of course, there is scope for pupils to discuss creationism as part of religious education when developing their knowledge and understanding of Christianity and other religions. The OCR specification that the hon. Gentleman mentioned specifically does not in any way show that creationism has scientific validity. I hope I have put that matter to bed.
Amendment No. 81 focuses student entitlements on the three separate subjects of physics, chemistry and biology. However, the other route of studying the two GCSEs in science and additional science is also an important route towards studying sciences at A level. By adding sciences to the four entitlement areas that exist currently for key stage 4 students, amendment No. 82 would give them an entitlement to only one course out of biology, chemistry or physics, although I appreciate that that was probably not the intention behind the amendment. By providing an entitlement to only one course out of the three, the amendment would secure the provision that would only prepare students to study one of those subjects at A level. As such, it would be a weaker entitlement than that provided under clause 61, as drafted.
We believe that early specialisation is not suitable for most pupils. The majority currently study two GCSEs’ worth of science rather than the three separate sciences. That has enabled them not only to prepare for further study of science at A level, but to broaden their education with another GCSE in a different subject. We know that maths and ICT are also compulsory subjects at key stage 4. Pupils who study physics, chemistry and biology GCSEs in addition to ICT and maths GCSE obviously have less spare curriculum time to follow a wider education, including arts, humanities and modern foreign languages.
If a science entitlement does not also promote the GCSEs in science and additional science, it will not provide an appealing offer for many pupils. I want the statutory entitlement to encourage all pupils to study enough science to progress to A levels, not only to focus effectively on a narrow entitlement that might be of interest only to young science enthusiasts.
Amendment No. 431 would give a statutory entitlement to a pupil who has reached level 6 or above at key stage 3 to a course of study at key stage 4, leading to separate qualifications in the three sciences. Amendment No. 432 would mean that specialist science schools would have to offer from 2008 key stage 4 courses of study, leading to qualifications in the individual sciences to pupils who had achieved at least level 6 at key stage 3.
If the amendments were accepted and schools were forced to provide physics, chemistry and biology GCSEs to some or all of their pupils, there would be a real risk that schools might focus only on providing those three subjects and may not offer the science and additional science GCSEs, which, as I have already said, are the more appropriate to the majority of pupils. Securing science for the science enthusiasts would be at the cost of eroding science provision for the majority.

Sarah Teather: I accept the technical points that the Minister has made about the amendment, but does he accept that if schools work in collaboration it should be possible to arrange the entitlement so that young people could move to other schools to study individual sciences? The Government should encourage that.

Phil Hope: I am happy for schools to work collaboratively, but there are amendments to which we shall come later that would prevent that, because certain subjects would be barred from collaborative work. That is nonsense, and the whole development of our 14-to-19 strategy, with collaboration between schools and FE colleges, greatly widens choice, opportunity and curricular entitlement for young people. My point is that the Government’s approach secures the opportunity both to study three separate sciences and to study science and additional science. The statutory science entitlement in clause 61 will secure science learning suitable for all key stage 4 pupils, and other measures will provide GCSEs in physics, chemistry and biology for those pupils who wish to undertake a greater amount of science learning at key stage 4.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton himself mentioned the Government’s document entitled “Science and Innovation Framework 2004-2014: Next Steps”, which contains commitments to ensure that our ablest young science students have access to triple-science GCSEs. That includes pupils who achieve at least level 6 at key stage 3. The Government are also committed to ensuring that all specialist science schools will offer GCSEs for physics, chemistry and biology at least to all pupils who achieve level 6 at the end of key stage 3. That will be achieved by the end of September 2008. That is not an attempt to curry favour with any part of the Labour party leadership; it is a sensible way to deliver better science education.
Of course it is right to give our ablest young scientists the opportunity to study more science, but it will also be appropriate for the majority of pupils to continue to study physics, chemistry and biology as part of two science GCSEs. Taken together, the Government’s commitments in the area form a more balanced package of measures than the amendments. They will benefit all young people with an interest in and an aptitude for science, and I believe that that approach provides the most practical way to achieve the effect desired by hon. Members. I therefore ask that the amendments be withdrawn.

Sitting suspended.